Re: Why is Homo sapiens hairless?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU: "Re: archaeological find in Oregon"
• Previous message: Susan S. Chin: "Re: define species was Re: Modern Neanderthals?"
• Maybe in reply to: Rohinton Collins: "Why is Homo sapiens hairless?"
• Next in thread: Rohinton Collins: "Re: Why is Homo sapiens hairless?"

John Waters <jdwaters@dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bbc514$61cd8fa0$202670c2@default>...

> JW: It is a simple idea, but it is not parsimonious;
> because the
> manufacture of clothes is not simple, or parsimonious.
>

Surely my theory is more parsimonious than the AAT?
After all, one of our hominid ancestors (or us) had to be the first to wear
clothes. And why isn't the manufacture of clothes simple? If Homo erectus
used stone tools to butcher carcasses which (s)he may have scavenged or
hunted and likely brought back to his/her home base, then why could (s)he
not have fashioned simple garments out of the dried skins left over.
Indeed, for an animal capable of making stone tools it would be less
believable to suggest that (s)he would be unable to tailor simple garments.

The AAT seems an overly complicated theory to me which is supported by
little evidence, or logical thought.

Regards,

Roh

• Next message: SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU: "Re: archaeological find in Oregon"
• Previous message: Susan S. Chin: "Re: define species was Re: Modern Neanderthals?"
• Maybe in reply to: Rohinton Collins: "Why is Homo sapiens hairless?"
• Next in thread: Rohinton Collins: "Re: Why is Homo sapiens hairless?"