Re: P.Comm - Follow up - Is It True black hips are narrower...

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 06/24/04 

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:49:29 GMT

"Anonymous457267" <anonymous457267@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9d9d816e.0406230325.29226d65@posting.google.com...
> So my question is, why does testosterone efffect Hip size/width? I
> know it effects aggression for example, but why does it have several
> effects. I know virtually nothing about biology so please explain to
> me.

Hi. James is kinda the expert on that testosterone information - however,
one hormone can have effects on MANY things, not just one thing. For
instance, their hips may be narrower, but their bones are denser than anyone
else's are. There were quite a few postings on that subject on here awile
back by many posters - digging up what other effects testosterone has. For
instance, WHY does it make people more aggressive? Well, it does - but why?
Heh? Because it does!

I know testosterone has many different effects, like aggression,
> and according to you hip size, wouldn't it be easier if these things
> only effected one trait, it'd be easier for humans to develop a
> specific trait then, like increasing or decreasing aggressive without
> having a side-effect of increasing or decreasing hip size?

It would be easier, but that's not the way genes and/or hormones work at
all. Often, one gene has a whole cascade of effects - not only altering
behavior but altering appearance. The changing of ONE gene can make a
lineage in one clade behave and look exactly like another lingeage. It's a
whole package, more or less, a package of specific things. You can't get
one without the other.

>
> Also is this true, James Michael Howard (jmhoward@arkansas.net) wrote:
> "I may be incorrect here, so correct if I am, but I think Rushton
> thinks whites
> have bigger hips because of bigger babies. I think whites have bigger
> hips
> because of less testosterone and less testosterone also makes bigger
> brained
> babies."

Yes. The two go together. Like, we write because we have dextrous hands.
Dogs do not write because they do not have dextrous hands. We did not
evolve hands in order to write. We write because we CAN. Larger hipped
women CAN have bigger brained babies. It's not that small hipped women do
not - they might have them too but then they might die trying to give birth
to them, or the babies might die. Back when all this was being selected
for - there was no modern medicine, no maternity wards.
>
> Even though there's no evidence for brain size differences, I guess
> it's just his opinion.
> But P.comm, does testosterone effect size of children's brain/heads
> ASWELL?!?!?

I don't know. James will have to answer that. Aside from that, I am not as
reductionist as James on what causes the WHOLE effect that we can see.
Also, real information about the brain itself, when comparing races to each
other, is not easy to come by at all.
>
> Thanks.

Welcome.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----
>
> Original Thread title: "Is it True black hips are narrower..."
>
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=tnmbc.8818%24yN6.3925%40newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net&rnum=38&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dtnmbc.8818%2524yN6.3925%2540newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net%26rnum%3D38
>
> Originally posted by P.Comm (tjsrno@spampost.com):
>
> Hon, James just explained the WHY to you.  You are missing the steps
> and
> order of events.  That the wider hips allowed for and resulted in
> bigger
> brained births is not the point.  You DO realize that women also die
> in
> childbirth if the child can't come out (no doctors back then).
>  Testosterone - s$xual selection - that explains it. I don't think you
> are
> understanding his answers.  Lemme try to explain it.
>
> You don't just evolve something "in order to do" something.  Doesn't
> work
> that way.  You already HAVE something - and due to having it, you are
> able
> to DO something.  That means:  some HS (homo sapiens) already HAD
> wider hips
> due to the testosterone difference.  That means, larger brained babies
> did
> not result in mother/child death when being born in the group with
> less
> testosterone - but it gets interesting.  Listen:
>
> Listen, recently (I wish I had a source for it, but I don't) - Russian
> biologists had a big bunch of wild foxes.  They chose among the foxes
> the
> ones that were "more" friendly, "more" playful - which is easy to tell
> if
> you are a human feeding them.  Now, keep in mind that nothing ELSE was
> used
> for selection.  ONLY BEHAVIOR was used for choosing - and that makes
> this
> astonishing.  They selected OUT of the bunch ones whose BEHAVIOR was
> obviously friendlier.  Any dog trainer knows how to do this with tiny
> puppies even.  Friendlier ones will immediately climb on the human,
> friendly, playful.  Less friendly ones, will avoid the human.  Very
> simple.
> At first, some of the wild foxes were fox-hostile - but then some
> others
> were cosying up, friendlier - some very friendly, even playful with
> the
> humans.  These are wild animals.
>
> Next, they segregated the friendly ones and they bred with each other.
>  They
> did the same selection again with those offspring.
>
> It did not take long at all - the foxes that I'll call "more peaceful
> and
> friendly" had a VERY OBVIOUS difference in APPEARANCE - their snouts
> changed, the ears were different, the whole shape of the head was
> noticeably
> different.  Seriously, it was enough to make me GASP in surprise.  You
> might
> be hard pressed to even recognize that it was a fox!  It no longer
> looked
> exactly like a fox!  PHENOTYPE changed by just selecting for BEHAVIOR.
> NOTHING genetic was done, no tests, nothing like that.  Selection was
> purely
> along behavioral lines - resulting in change in appearance in a few
> generations later offspring.
>
> It happened in a FEW generations.  All they did was select for
> behavior.
> THAT is what is so damned astonishing!  Science news or Scientific
> America
> may have had the original article - and it was also on one of those
> Animal
> Documentary cable channels because I saw the new foxes.  The
> implications?
> BIG BIG BIG.
>
> Now, if the foxes THEMSELVES had done this (like early HS obviously
> did) -
> that is, if the more peaceful foxes were driven out of the more
> aggressive
> fox group by the foxes themselves - then there would have been two fox
> groups:  hyper aggressive-aggressive versus friendly-very friendly.
> Of
> course they'd mate - friendly with friendly and aggressive with
> aggressive.
> In a few generations, the offspring would LOOK markedly different in
> appearance.  Obviously, wild foxes never did this.  Humans did it for
> them.
>
> Consider that the first dog breeding happened NOT based on which dogs
> had
> the snubbest snouts or pointiest ears - but which dogs could be seen
> to hunt
> better, obey better, smell better - and you ended up with VERY
> different
> appearances.  VERY different!  Dogs, however, do not use visual
> markers;
> they use smell.  HUMANS DO use VISUAL markers.
>
> Here is the scenario:  Types of humans or HS exist.  Some have high
> testosterone, some do not.  That's what already existed back then in
> Africa.
> Either the lower testosterone group was driven out by the more
> aggressive
> types -- or they left to get away on their own (heh).  That group
> would have
> already HAD the wider hips.  Got it?  Now, that would ENABLE THEM to
> have
> bigger headed babies.  (Like, example, we don't evolve our hands and
> arms in
> order to hold weapons or throw stones or write.  We do these things
> because
> we already HAVE the body parts that enable us to do them.  Already
> having
> those body parts, we can then select mates that can do these things
> better
> and maybe it's genetic and inherited and maybe it's not (is penmanship
> inherited?)!  Dogs and dolphins can also catch frisbies and balls -
> very
> well too.  But they can't THROW them - they don't have the body parts
> for
> it.  If they did - they'd be throwing them back at us in play!
>
> According to one source that I managed to find, at least, the group
> that
> left was Euroasian in appearance.  The ones that stayed were African
> in
> appearance. This information seems to be really hard to find!  But
> believe
> me, it's NOT "very hard" to tell the difference no matter WHAT the PC
> thought cops and deniers might wish.  It's VERY EASY to tell them
> apart.
> I'll paste in the info.
>
> From National Center for Science Education:
>
> Goes into the earlier finds and then gets to H sapiens sapiens
> "...This
>
> view is supported by several fossil finds dating between 150,000 and
> 100,000
>
> years ago, during the time that the Neanderthals were spreading across
> the
>
> Mediterranean area. Fossils from Ethiopia, Tanzania, and South Africa
> seem
>
> to link the Rhodesian group to the earliest fully modern humans, which
> first
>
> appear in South Africa before 90,000 years ago and soon afterward in
> the
>
> Near East. The most interesting aspect of these early Homo sapiens
> sapiens
>
> fossils is that they can be linked in some cases to the living racial
>
> groups: the South African specimens are definitely African, while
> those from
>
> North Africa and Israel appear to represent a Eurasian race which no
> longer
>
> exists -- perhaps they split up into the ancestors of later Europeans
> and
>
> Asians."
>
>
> That means that like the foxes in a few generations - the two groups
> would
> have been identifiable on sight.  S$xual selection and separation
> takes care
> of the rest.   I'm not sure about Rushton - he has quite a few things
> WAY
> off base and provably so and he doesn't use enough samples.  But these
> two
> ty pes of humans ALREADY EXISTED BEFORE HS got to the middle east.
> WHEN
> they got to the middle east, the earliest finds of them already show a
> euro-asian type of appearance - NOT an African one.  OK?
>
> Please see inside.
>
> "Learn_The_Truth" <learn_the_truth2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c37c1333.0404020025.6d830128@posting.google.com...
> > Someone said on here that blacks have narrower hips because of the
> > warmer climate.
>
> That is FALSE.  Amazonian Indians live in the same warmer/wetter
> climate.
> So did the equatorial people in the Americas.  They have wider hips.
> SE
> Asians the same - and more - they seem to have no problem squatting
> down and
> simply HAVING the babies unassisted.  I would imagine that if an
> exceptionally large headed baby came, it might be harder or impossible
> to
> birth, too.  Even with modern medicine, women do die in childbirth or
> get
> torn up pretty bad - so bad they can't ever have any MORE kids!  That
> is
> ALSO a Y-chromosome related problem.  I saw the data on it - but did
> not
> save any of it.
>
> I would like an explanation for why white hips are
> > wider. White male hips are wider than black hips, and white female
> > hips are wider still. If white people came from africa, they must have
> > gone from having narrower hips to wider, why is this?
>
> I know that some Asiatics (self included) have wide and very HIGH hip
> gones.
> If we wear a belt like Kossack style clothing, it makes us look very
> hour
> glass due to the waist and the HIGH hip bones.  You can have a thin
> waist
> compared to hips and if the hip bones are lower, you are NOT going to
> get
> that noticeable look.  Trust me, everyone notices it (he he he). That
> is,
> the waist is there with the tight belt and then you can feel the hip
> bones
> immediately below.  No problem giving birth, either.  Pop them right
> out!
> If the person is fat, you won't notice it, but you can FEEL the hip
> bones
> and feel where they are on the person.  I've even seen this on very
> skinny
> Chinese men - the waste and then immediately the high hip bones.  Most
> southern European type whites I've seen seem to have LOWER hip bones -
> and
> whites DO have problems and pain having babies.   Would they be able
> to have
> them UNASSISTED?  Please consider these options.  They are IMPORTANT
> if you
> rule out modern medicine and assisted births.    Also, please
> understand the
> order of events:  IN Africa there were two groups - high testosterone,
> and
> low testosterone.  High T had narrower hips, more aggressive behavior,
> the
> whole rest, including HIGHER s$x drive.  Testosterine in women makes
> them
> MORE horny, not less!   Low T had the wider hips.  They ALREADY had
> this, I
> think you are missing that point.  They may have been driven out by
> their
> more aggressive members - or they may have left.  But the fox
> experiment
> (even dog breeding of old) PROVES that such things that are as
> "insignificant" as friendly versus aggressive behavior ALSO result in
> a
> change of APPEARANCE.  That MEANS they'd have been identifiable on
> sight to
> each other.  OK?  Humans DO use VISUAL markers!
>
> > It's well known that the reason females have wider hips than males is
> > because of childbirth, if you have another explanation I'd be happy to
> > hear it.
> > Thanks.
>
> No, no NO - get the order of events right, please, and note my caps
> for
> emphasis.  Females do NOT have wider hips BECAUSE of childbirth.  That
> is
> TELEOLOGICAL thinking.  It means that females that ALREADY HAD wider
> hips -
> WOULD HAVE  BEEN ABLE to give birth to larger head babies and not DIE
> in
> childbirth from it.  That is NOT to rule out that some smaller headed
> ones
> got born to big hipped women.  That is also not to rule out that some
> larger
> headed ones did NOT get born to narrow hip women because the mother
> died in
> childbirth.  All of these things WOULD have happened.  You'd have had
> death
> in childbirth, stillborns, and the whole rest of the mess, premature
> births,
> all of that would have happened.
>
> The point is very clear - the TWO groups were clearly different in
> BEHAVIOR
> due to the testosterone - and the FOX experiment at least to me proves
> beyond a doubt that they'd be able to recognise the two groups on
> sight.
> Recognizing a visible difference would make it a LOT easier for people
> to
> select s$xually - a lot easier than just noticing behavior.  Tho
> behavior is
> NOT hard to notice either - it's even easy to notice in dogs or foxes
> -
> apperance is easier to notice for humans.
> >
> > "Lastly, the bones of the pelvis widen and become smooth, in
> > preparation for childbirth."
>
> You do realize that the bones of the pelvis do this even if the female
> is
> sterile?  You know, dogs also die if the puppies are too big to come
> out.
> MANY puppies used to die - but now that humans care for dogs, heh,
> they have
> a much higher survival rate :)  Clever dogs!
> >
> >
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/articles/lifecycle/teenagers/girl_s_growth.shtml

Relevant Pages

  • Re: P.Comm - Follow up - Is It True black hips are narrower...
    ... > But if testosterone controls both hip-size and aggression, ... Testosterone PLUS ... > hips) pushing less aggressive africans (lower testosterone, ... had a kind of Euro-Asian appearance - while the others had a more Africanish ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: P.Comm - Follow up - Is It True black hips are narrower...
    ... Testosterone PLUS ... >> hips) pushing less aggressive africans (lower testosterone, ... >that aggression is the side effect, ... >No one can experiment on humans to find out. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: London is worst crime capital in EU
    ... "Identifying testosterone with aggression is an idea whose time has come and gone" ... "This review article explores the evidence that testosterone is significantly correlated with certain forms of aggression in a number of animals, although firm evidence is lacking for humans." ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: London is worst crime capital in EU
    ... "Identifying testosterone with aggression is an idea whose time has come and gone" ... "This review article explores the evidence that testosterone is significantly correlated with certain forms of aggression in a number of animals, although firm evidence is lacking for humans." ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: London is worst crime capital in EU
    ... "Identifying testosterone with aggression is an idea whose time has come and gone" ... "This review article explores the evidence that testosterone is significantly correlated with certain forms of aggression in a number of animals, although firm evidence is lacking for humans." ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
Loading