Re: moore blabla (Re: Scientists Find Prehistoric Dwarf Skeleton

From: J Moore (anthrosciguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 23:18:13 GMT

Marc Verhaegen <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:4186ab3c$0$15721$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> Try to spell "sebaceous", Moore. Sebaceous glands are typical of
> semi-aquatic spp that spend a lot of time in water. No wonder humans have
> more sebaceous glands than chimps.

I'll try harder on my spelling, and you can try to learn to spell
"okey-dokey", "imbecile"... and now apparently "species". They're numerous
in a great many species, not just semi-aquatic species as you seem to be
trying to imply. Of course you do so by saying they're "typical of" which
is true, just as they are "typical of" primates, "typical of" deer, "typical
of" an enormous range of mammals living in all sorts of environments.
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about spelling and more about
getting facts right and stating them without attaempting to mislead people. 

--
JMoore
__
For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
www.aquaticape.org
> _______
>
> "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ivwhd.90117$Pl.65494@pd7tw1no...
> > Kermit <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2b38d8c5.0410312222.6242cd42@posting.google.com...
> > > "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<qbehd.75202$nl.39094@pd7tw3no>...
> > > > Kermit <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2b38d8c5.0410311130.75421b29@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > >  news:<4184ce12$0$1424$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...
> > > > > > > unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > > > > I suspect we lost our fur in order to cool off while
traveling
> > on
> > > >  foot
> > > > > > for long distances, especially at high speeds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ?? Are there still peole left who believe this nonsense??
> > Incredible!
> > > >  Inform
> > > > > > & think a bit, Kermit. Unbelievable...
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Enlighten me; what is the current thinking on why we are
the
> > > > > naked ape? A link will do, or a name and keyword I can google. As
a
> > > > > non-anthropologist who  used to run a lot, it seemed reasonable
when
> I
> > > > > first heard it years ago. Still does; perhaps it is outmoded
> thinking
> > > > > but you have not yet given me reason to think otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kermit
> > > >
> > > > While there may have been some selection for effects like cooling,
> human
> > > > hair patterns are rather clearly the result of sexual selection.
You
> > can
> > > > see this by the variation amongst peoples, the variation between the
> > sexes,
> > > > and the variation in individuals from one age to another, with a
> > dramatic
> > > > difference (and difference between the sexes) starting at puberty.
> > >
> > > I concur that that is why we have beards - those of us  who have them
> > > (what does this say, BTW, about men who shave them off? (but I
> > > digress)).
> > >
> > > Is it obvious to those who think about these things professionally
> > > that our almost total fur loss is merely sexual selection? Intuitively
> > > (a precise and reliable tool in science), it seems that for an ape to
> > > make the transition to a long distance runner, he would have to make
> > > some serious adaptations. We don't have the strength of our Pan
> > > cousins, but we have endurance up the wazoo. Runners generate a lot of
> > > heat, and dealing with it is a major deal. We don't pant like dogs; we
> > > sweat. How efficient would it be to be furry and sweating? Horses
> > > sweat, and they're  furry. Of course, we can run faster for distance.
> > >
> > > Do you have a link, or a name?
> > >
> > > Thanx
> > > Kermit
> >
> > Darwin?  (In "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex --
> > seriously, I think he got it right the first time, which he was pretty
> good
> > at, esp. whenh you look at the amount of info available back then.
Sexual
> > selection overall fell out of fashion as an explanation for quite some
> time
> > until sometime around the late 40s or so, but it picked up steam once
> people
> > started doing more studies of animals in the wild).  Really, the
patterns
> > are classic sexual selection, as are the supporting features of
sebaeceous
> > glands and scent receptors.  We see that sebaeceous glands are important
> for
> > scent in mammals, and that we see more sebaeceous glands in males than
in
> > females,a nd that these glands tend to be in areas where there's also
> hair,
> > making them an effective scent gland -- and the flip side is that we see
> > that females have better scent receptors than males.  It's a pretty neat
> > fit.  But there are likely other ancillary benefits, as with most things
> in
> > evolution.
> >
> > I don't know how many people really go after this part of human
evolution
> > now, as most want to look at things that can be tested, and that
> genenrally
> > has meant bones in human evolution.  Otherwise you get into speculation
> > without being able to test, which is not all that useful.  On the scent
> > question, there's a good book I read some years back, The Scented Ape :
> The
> > Biology and Culture of Human Odour (Cambridge University Press, 1990) by
> > David Michael Stoddart.  I found it in a public library so it may be
> fairly
> > widely available.  I don't know offhand of anything spoecifically on
body
> > and head hair, but keep in mind that it seems to be related to glands
and
> > sweat.  There may well be some good stuff out in the past several years
> that
> > I'm not aware of.  Unfortunately, I think Marc's suggestions are not
> > helpful.
> >
> > --
> > JMoore
> > __
> > For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
> > www.aquaticape.org
> >
> >
>
>
Loading