Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook
From: richard01 (richardparker01_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/24/04
- Next message: richard01: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Previous message: richard01: "Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH"
- In reply to: firstjois: "Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook"
- Next in thread: J Moore: "Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook"
- Reply: J Moore: "Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Oct 2004 21:22:48 -0700
"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<R-udnZ8vZaTLJ-TcRVn-3A@comcast.com>...
> J Moore wrote:
> >> richard01 <richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:6e30eb22.0410180506.ab39ebf@posting.google.com...
> >>> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<41733CA6.97FD8E3E@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> >>>> Rick Wagler wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "mikelist" <mikelist@tds.net> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:41726069$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> >>>>>> Something occurred to me, has anyone researched the possibility
> >>>>>> that relative hairlessness was a cultural change, kind of a sign
> >>>>>> of 'breeding up' or as a way to distinguish ourselves from
> >>>>>> 'those animals'?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Constructive info will be assimilated, insults will be directed
> >>>>>> to /dev/postal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mike List
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For this idea to work the males and females of some
> >>>>> early hominid species would have to regard as
> >>>>> sexually desirable qualities not present in members
> >>>>> of the opposite sex. If someone today were to argue
> >>>>> that women would be much more attractive if they
> >>>>> had horns and tails he would be regarded, quite
> >>>>> rightly, as a lunatic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sexual selection for hair traits is not so far fetched. Our hair
> >>>> patterning distinguishes sexually mature individuals from those
> >>>> that are not, after all.
> >>>
> >>> Really? When did thirteen-year-olds grow different hair than 8yr
> >>> olds? Take a look at the illustrations to that old paedophile
> >>> Dodgson's great work and then say that Alice as a delicious
> >>> pre-pube with waist-long hair was showing sexual maturity against
> >>> her adult photographs.
> >>>
> >>> Richard
> >>
> >> Are you really unaware that humans grow hair in rather different
> >> places beginning at puberty, and that these differences vary between
> >> the sexes? --
> >> JMoore
> >> __
> Maybe he believes that fig leaf story.
>
> Jois
No but I do try to keep quiet and not show my red face when someone
exposes a very obviously foolish statement.
Richard
- Next message: richard01: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Previous message: richard01: "Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH"
- In reply to: firstjois: "Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook"
- Next in thread: J Moore: "Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook"
- Reply: J Moore: "Re: Fire, Food and Fish - Homo erectus didn't need fire to cook"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]