posted 06 October 2005 08:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Simplistic: North East Asians are the best adapted skeletally to cold weather and have less body hair on average than Africans.

-----Rasol

---

quote:

---

An Ainu from North Eastern Asia

Relaxx

---

Again, simplistic, as the Japanese refer to the Ainu as 'hairy Ainu' precisely because the feature is unusual.

Feel free to post a million hairy Asian pictures, if you think it helps but this is my last comment on this topic:

East Asian skin colour ranges from nearly white through yellowish to brown. The
hair of Mongoloids tends to be black, and in cross section round and large
in diameter. Generously distributed body hair is uncommon. - http://www.ucalgary.ca [University of Calgary]

Isolated in an area that must have had a climate not unlike Greenland’s, this small inbreeding group of proto Mongoloidals were forced to unconsciously favor traits that made for survival in a cold climate.

Having relatively short limbs compared to length conserves heat because less surface area is exposed. Raised cheekbones shield the nasal passages from cold air more than do the “big noses" of the Caucasoidals and some early Mongoloidals.

Similarly, an extra layer of fatty tissue over the upper eyelid shields the eyes from the cold. Having less facial and body hair also helps.

Human body hair is not thick enough to act like a pelt. It can act like the fins of a radiator. As a consquence the more body hair humans have, the more likely they are to suffer from hypothermia in a cold climate. - Space and Time, the geographic context of East Asian Civilisations. www.wwu.edu/~kaplan/eas201/201-01.pdf

Hope this helps.

posted 07 October 2005 05:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Again, simplistic, as the Japanese refer to the Ainu as 'hairy Ainu' precisely because the feature is unusual.

Feel free to post a million hairy Asian pictures, if you think it helps but this is my last comment on this topic:

East Asian skin colour ranges from nearly white through yellowish to brown. The
hair of Mongoloids tends to be black, and in cross section round and large
in diameter. [b]Generously distributed body hair is uncommon. - http://www.ucalgary.ca [University of Calgary]

Isolated in an area that must have had a climate not unlike Greenland’s, this small inbreeding group of proto Mongoloidals were forced to unconsciously favor traits that made for survival in a cold climate.

Having relatively short limbs compared to length conserves heat because less surface area is exposed. Raised cheekbones shield the nasal passages from cold air more than do the “big noses" of the Caucasoidals and some early Mongoloidals.

Similarly, an extra layer of fatty tissue over the upper eyelid shields the eyes from the cold. Having less facial and body hair also helps.

Human body hair is not thick enough to act like a pelt. It can act like the fins of a radiator. As a consquence the more body hair humans have, the more likely they are to suffer from hypothermia in a cold climate. - Space and Time, the geographic context of East Asian Civilisations. www.wwu.edu/~kaplan/eas201/201-01.pdf

Hope this helps.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 October 2005).][/B]

---

posted 07 October 2005 06:01 AM            

quote:

---

Sorry but as I mentioned in my earlier posts, these are speculations

---

The problem is your comments are all idle speculations and none of them are rooted in data or facts of which you have none.

quote:

---

however you dodged the original subject: some type of hair

---

Nonsense. The subject was addressed directly and sources provided.

In stark contrast you keep arguing out of false pride, presenting no evidence, no sources, no facts or data, because you don't have any.

And you don't address the source material provided either.

What you have done is provide hot air, such as.....

quote:

---

very long hair or very light skin are traits that might evolve much faster than other physical traits.

---

^....mere ad hoc commentary based on no research, and supported by no scholarship.

It is also of doubtful relevance - if such traits evolve [faster, compared to what other traits?] then how exactly can you use them to draw conclusions about admixture?

But we are wasting each others time here:

Either produce source references for your remarks or tell us about your *personal* research that you've conducted.

I respect you, but you've done this *thing* before and in conversations with other posters - You argue just to be arguing based on unsubstantiated opinion, are politely asked to produce evidence, and never do.

posted 07 October 2005 06:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Mansa Musa,
I was myself a little bit surprised by the language used by Rasol in his earlier posts, I hope he understands that some people need to learn and they'll probably go away if he continues to have that attitude. I don’t really understand what he means by “slave mentality”, I don’t really know whether is Persian, African, Japanese, but he should definitely pick carefully his words, because it’s sometime offending. No wonder the likes of Evil are the only ones who feel comfortable in that environment since they suffer from serious forms of masochism, most of the posters don't and go away. Too bad. Mansu, please stay around you'll learn a lot.
Relaxx

---

I'm not feeling so uncomfortable with Rasol's words that I am going to leave but I can see how you would think that.

Calling my opinion however erroneous it may have been purposefully misleadingand calling me a "Non-African with an African name sake" was uncalled for.

So was all the tripe about slave mentality and what not that is flaming.

I think Rasol has been conversing with the likes of Evil Euro and other trolls for far too long and has developed a defensive anti-troll mentality to which he seems to flame everyone who says something he does not agree with.

Furthermore, while I have always found some of these discussions interesting and was impressed by the resources you rarelu see on other sites the flame wars are a major turn off. When you have people like Evil Euro quoting people as "The Babbling Ape" and mixing in racial slurs with his sources you no longer have a discussion you have a flame war and a side show and while it can be good entertainment for a little while it is quite counter productive. I'd suggest that if these trolls can be dealt with that the moderators get rid of them, some of them have gone past the point of redundant.

Or perhaps we should switch the bulk of these discussions to some place like Nile Valley forums but some of these threads on here are becoming ridiculous.

posted 07 October 2005 06:37 AM            

And while you indulge in empty posturing, [sorry, i don't want to play games with you] the specific questions you were asked have gone unaddressed.

Usually when someone responds in that fashion, the intent is to take the focus off of questions they have no answers to.

posted 07 October 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^^ Actually your approach in the last two replies, which consist entirely of ad-hominem remarks, which you attempt to bolster with misquotes of others is a part of the problem.

And while you indulge in empty posturing, [sorry, i don't want to play games with you] the specific questions you were asked have gone unaddressed.

Usually when someone responds in that fashion, the intent is to take the focus off of questions they have no answers to.

That doesn't work with me. Sorry.

---

I did not issue an ad-hominem remark about you nor did I misquote anyone.

And if I didn't respond to a question I may not have deemed it as irrelevant.

Without even looking at the past pages I recall you asking me what "anthropologically Caucasion" meant. That seems to me like a rhetorical question, you are familiar with the term I don't need to tell you what it means my only point in bringing it up was to show an example of the conversation.

If anyone is using ad-hominem attacks it is you.

ad hom·i·nem
adj.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.

Rather than simply address the inaccuracies in my statement you decided to accuse me of "purposefully misleading" discussion and then preceeded to attack my ethnic identity by making assumptions about my username and who is behind it. You know who I am. I am the moderator from MootStormfront who issued an invitiation to our site both here and at Nile Valley forum, you also attempted to lecture me there about the your opinion that the site was "misguided" but you never elaborated.

Nile Valley Civilization: MootStormfront

My last post brought up legitimate concerns about the board. Whatever "problems" you see or "games" you believe are being played are only in your head.

I simply do not appreciate being attacked because you may find something to be incorrect or offensive. You instigate this type of conversation by accusing people of things and coming to false conclusions about motives such as when you insinuated that I deliberately avoided your questions.

You just recently accused Relaxx of arguing just to argue but that seems to b ewhat you do as well. There is simply no reason for you to put people on the defensive like this, it is uncalled for and counter productive to discussion.

If you want answers to a question you feel I should have answered politely post them again for me to respond. When you don't and come to a conclusion as to why I didn't answer them the first time you give the impression that attacking someone's motives is more important to you than the question they did not answer.

posted 07 October 2005 09:17 AM            

Your replies continue in an ad hominem vein having nothing to do with the subject at hand.

moving on....

posted 07 October 2005 10:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Move on then but you still prove your lack of concern for your questions by not repeating them.

---

Works this way: by replying but not answering you are wasting your time.

By not repeating myself, I am not wasting my time.

cao'

posted 07 October 2005 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Say what you want.

I think you have an attitude problem that is all there is to it.

---

And yet it is "you" who are catching feelings.

But you are correct in a sense.

I expect answers, sources, facts and data.

I consider the ad-hominem, pose striking and grandstanding to be worthless, and a sign of weakness.

You have no answers.

That is my sole concern [attitude].

Given that, we have little to say to one another.

No hard feelings from me.

posted 07 October 2005 11:42 AM            

We have to recognise first of all that all human traits derive from: 1) mutations, 2)genetic drift and 3)assorted mating within sections of a population and over a long period of time. Men usually did the choosing though--especially those with the equivalent of harems.

Second: the hair of the primates(chimps and gorillas) closest genetically to humans is straight and in the case of the Japanese snow monkeys, quite long.

Note too that the Siberian tiger has a thicker and longer fur coat than its more tropical version the Bengal tiger.

Hypothesis:

The first humans, therefore, had straight hair which was lost for whatever reasons. But hair remained on the head and parts of the body also for specific reasons. Its variations could be due mainly to genetic drift and environmental pressures. We note though that the most heavily pigmented people in the world(i.e. the "blackest") often come with long straight hair: Indians in India, Australian aboriginese, etc. Some native Americans are also quite black but with very long and straight East Asian type hair.

The puzzling thing--for many-- is that hair type and colour are not positively correlated. Example: the yellow San of the Kalahari are among the least pigmented of Africans but have the most tightly curled hair on the continent.

And for those who love to get all excited about the varied hair colour of Europeans note that monkeys are also coiffed as brunets, red-hairs, black-hairs, silver hairs on the fringes(silver back gorillas), etc. And maybe there are blond blue-eyed monkeys too.

A final note: the vast majority of the world's population--of whatever colour--have straightish hair. Asia and Europe carry some 70% of the worlds population and their inhabitants mostly have straight/straightish hair. So there's something antropologically noteworthy about the tightly curled, medium curled and frizzy hair of Africans.

posted 07 October 2005 11:58 AM            

Hair texture is subject to a variety of distinct selective pressures, thats why no single factor such as tropical vs. artic environment is determinative.

Enivronmental issues include: protection against heat, against sun, against cold, against moisture, and against insects/parastic infection.

Other selective factors include: sexual selection; male pattern baldness, longer hair in females, blondeness, different degrees of texture may all be sexually/socially selected.

I would put no undo emphasis on the percentage of people living in Eurasia vs. Africa today because that is a recent largely post neolithic phenomena - post-dating virtually all the known differences in hair textures.

The fact remains that the majority of genetic and physical diversity is of African origin - not Eurasian and certainly not European.

Even blondeness, the most unique European trait would still exist in Australia without Europeans.

We still invariably give too much anthropological credit to Europeans - who are primarily recipients of modern human genes and phenotypes and *not* originators or provable sources.

posted 07 October 2005 02:10 PM            

I have noticed your posts several times on various topics on egyptsearch.com

I am working on an anthropology project (regarding bulletin boards) and would like to privately email you a few questions; and get your "expertise" regarding the rules and norms of bulletin board communication.

Also, I am interested in your background (educational/research).

I am an occupational therapist, and am studying culture and communcation.

Please contact me here or privately at thrash@pinkiemae.com

Thank you.

posted 07 October 2005 04:51 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol says: Different hair textures exist all around the world, and likely always have in Africa.

At present there is no way of gauging ancestry from hair texture.

One of the biggest myths of [folk-wisdom] on hair in Africa, is that the Afro texture which is most common is somehow -> pure.

This is nonsense.

"Afro" textured hair is intermediate between peppercorn hair found among some Khoisan, and curly hair found among some Saharans and Horn Africans.

These textures exist among the earliest non Africans, which suggests they are native to Africa - Andamans with Afros, Melanesians with curly hair, Australians with wavy hair and so on.

Thats why hair texture among the earliest Africans is something of a guess for physical anthropologists.

there is no evidence that Africans ever had only 1 hair texture, and if they did, it would be hard to explain the subsequent non African diversity, and should be possible to prove, genetically.

We have more and better information infering ancestry from the [b]genetics of skin color than we do from hair texture.[/b]

---

Correct. Why? Because, humans have lived in Africa longer then anywhere else in the world.

quote:

---

There is no way to determine hair texture from skeletal remains.

We do know that early non-AFricans migrated from East Africa to Southern Asia, Melanesia and Australia 60-50 thousand years ago, before spreading into Northern Eurasia 45-40 thousand years ago, and into Europe 35-40 thousand years ago.

Skeletally early non Africans resembled modern tropical Africans, and of course modern Native Australians and Melanesians still do resemble Africans. Though these populations resemble one another skeletally and in skin color, their hair textures vary.

This implies that this was likely the case with early non-Africans.

Among different populations, different hair textures come to predominate due to genetic drift, and local natural or sexual selection, but the variability most likely was present from the start.

The notion that Africans ever had just one hair texture, but their non African descendants in the tropics from the earliest times have many, makes no sense, has no supporting evidence, genetic or otherwise and I know of no anthropologist who believes this.

---

Also, there is more to hair texture than just looks. As Ausar has stated many times, even though northeast Africans have hair that's mostly curly and occasionally wavy, the actual texture is still thick and wooly and not thin like light-skinned Eurasians.

And just to further add: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html

Egyptology: Hanging in the Hair

by Anu M'bantu and Fari Supia

F0R YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public. But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.O0

Zulu, Southern African 55.O0

Sub-Saharan Africa 60.O0

Tasmanian (Black) 64.70

Australian (Black) 68.00

Western European 71.20

Asian Indian 73.00

Navajo American 77.00

Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations(1).

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.

Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect...

Oh, and before Gonad-rider gets a bunch in his panties, I would like to say that even though this comes from an Afrocentric site, the FACTS presented still hold true! One must examine a cross section of the hairs under a microscope before conclusions can be made.

And according to these studies, Egyptians as well as other northeast Africans have hair that is just as African as 'kinky' haired West Africans. There are Eurasians outside of Africa with 'kinky' hair so people like the stupid mutt (Evil-Euro) or the dumb hyena (Leba) (probaby same person) can give this hair thing a rest!!

posted 07 October 2005 05:03 PM            

The Ainu were very much different from Yayoi (ancestors of the ethnic Japanese) as well as other populations generally classified as "mongoloid".

Relaxx is right that so-called (I hate this word) "mongoloid" Asians do vary in features and that as I have stated time and again people like Tibetans have a kind of 'elongated' look as well, with long limbs as well as narrow features.

But still the Ainu look even more different. Not only do they have larger, fuller beards and hairy bodies, but orignal 'pure' Ainu also had round eyes, and even light colored hair!! Practically all Ainu today have some form of Japanese admixture even the ones in Hokkaido and the ones in the Kurilin Islands have mixed with Siberians and so they do not look as much as their ancestors. The ONLY physical difference between Ainu and other Asians is their hairyness, much of the other features have been lost.

Of course, as we know, this does not mean they have any close relation to Europeans! On the contrary, genetic studies indicate that they are closer related to Asians. All in all this would indicate that the Ainu were populations resided in northern East Asia earlier than "mongloids." Kennewick Man of North America could very well be one of them.

posted 08 October 2005 04:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Was he Muslim or Christian?

---

Muslim, we met in masgid at iftar.

posted 08 October 2005 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Relaxx is right that so-called (I hate this word) "mongoloid" Asians do vary in features and that as I have stated time and again people like Tibetans have a kind of 'elongated' look as well, with long limbs as well as narrow features.
[/B]

---

Chinese 82.60

Do we have a scientific theory about why many Non Africans in general have obviously a hair texture that is much different from Africans? That was the main issue in the debate, please Djehuti, we need your wisdom.
Relaxx

posted 08 October 2005 04:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:

Do we have a scientific theory about why many Non Africans in general have obviously a hair texture that is much different from Africans? That was the main issue in the debate, please Djehuti, we need your wisdom.

Relaxx

---

Actually, we do! The difference in hair texture between various populations has to do with adaptation to climate. There are other features to hair morphology than just texture, like hair-length, and the amount of subcutaneous oil produced.

Cold-adapted people like Europeans and other Asians have hair that is longer and more oily. Whereas peoples in the tropics have thick wooly hair with very little oil and whose shape varies depending on the humidity.

For example, 'kinky' type hair is found among populations indigenous to hot and moist climates. Such type of hair is short with very little oil produced. Why? Because in a hot and humid environment long and oily hair would mean a breeding place for fungi and bacteria. Which is why cold-adapted people like white people who get lost in the jungle and go for even a few days without washing their hair will end up having hair that is matted, nasty looking and stink!

Then you have people in Northeast Africa who have curly hair but it is still as thick and wooly as the 'kinky' type. The reason for this is because they are adapted to a hot but DRY climate. Again, if a white person were to be stranded in the desert, their scalp and hair may not be as awful if they were in the jungle but it would still look a little bad because of over exposure to the sun's UVs and heat. Which is why you see many commercials about conditioner that protects hair from heat damage.

The ironic thing is that many black women try to alter their hair making it more straight, when really as the article I posted says, the process is really damaging their hair. Which is why they also suffer from heat damage that white women get or probably why many black women who get their hair done are afraid to get it wet. I dont know about all the details as far as hair dressing. LOL

The similarity that all Africans have in hair texture is that it is thick and wooly and the similarity in all enivironments of Africa is that it is HOT because of its location in the tropics.

What you must realize is that most non Africans who have hair textures different from Africans are those who live in cool to cold climates. Other non Africans who are indigenous to the tropics such as aboriginal populations like the Negritos, still have the same hair texture as Africans because they remain in the tropics.

Another thing to note is that black people have the least occurance of balding than other populations that have thin hair.

posted 09 October 2005 09:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Actually, we do! The difference in hair texture between various populations has to do with adaptation to climate. There are other features to hair morphology than just texture, like hair-length, and the amount of subcutaneous oil produced.

Cold-adapted people like Europeans and other Asians have hair that is longer and more oily. Whereas peoples in the tropics have thick wooly very little oil and whose varies depending on the humidity.

For example, 'kinky' type hair is found among populations indigenous to hot and moist climates. Such type of hair is short with very little oil produced. Why? Because in a hot and humid environment long and oily hair would mean a breeding place for fungi and bacteria. Which is why cold-adapted people like white people who get lost in the jungle and go for even a few days without washing their hair will end up having hair that is matted, nasty looking and stink!

Then you have people in Northeast Africa who have curly hair but it is still as thick and wooly as the 'kinky' type. The reason for this is because they are adapted to a hot but DRY climate. Again, if a white person were to be stranded in the desert, their scalp and hair may not be as awful if they were in the jungle but it would still look a little bad, because of over exposure to the sun's UVs and heat. Which is why you see many commercials about conditioner that protects hair from heat damage.

The ironic thing is that many black women try to alter their hair making it more straight, when really as the article I posted sayd, the process is really damaging their hair. Which is why they also suffer from heat damage that white women get or probably why many black women who get their hair done are afraid to get it wet. I dont know about all the details as far as hair dressing. [b]LOL

The similarity that all Africans have in hair texture is that it is thick and wooly and the similarity in all enivironments of Africa is that it is HOT because of its location in the tropics.

What you must realize is that most non Africans who have hair textures different from Africans are those who live in cool to cold climates. Other non Africans who are indigenous to the tropics such as aboriginal populations like the Negritos, still have the same hair texture as Africans because they remain in the tropics.

Another thing to note is that black people have the least occurance of balding than other populations that have thin hair.

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 08 October 2005).][/B]

---

posted 09 October 2005 12:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
But the Aboriginese of Australia, the South Asian Indians, the Samoans, the very dark Indigenous Amerindians of tropical South America, are all have heavily pigmented yet their hair is as straight as than those of cold climate Europeans and North East Asians who in general are the least pigmented people earth.

But again, if hair form is an environment/climate-adaptive trait then how do we explain tha fact that ALL tropical(whether dry or moist)evolved primates and other mammals carry STRAIGHT hair--as we find, in general, with Europeans, Aboriginese, Samoans, Native Americans and indigenous Asians?

---

posted 09 October 2005 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
But the Aboriginese of Australia, the South Asian Indians, the Samoans, the very dark Indigenous Amerindians of tropical South America, are all have heavily pigmented yet their hair is as straight as than those of cold climate Europeans and North East Asians who in general are the least pigmented people earth.

But again, if hair form is an environment/climate-adaptive trait then how do we explain tha fact that ALL tropical(whether dry or moist)evolved primates and other mammals carry STRAIGHT hair--as we find, in general, with Europeans, Aboriginese, Samoans, Native Americans and indigenous Asians?

---

Again:

* There are curly haired, Afro haired, wavy haired and straight haired south Asians.
They do *not* all have the same hair texture.

** The primary human environmental 'hair' adaptation is loss of fur. Humans don't have much body hair and what little they do serves dubious 'function'.

*** There is no valid simplistic theory of hair variation, ether within Africa or outside of it.

There is no proof that curly hair textures are any less native to Africa than Afro or woolly textures.

The "Bantu" phenotype [stereotype] has no privledged place in African history.

posted 09 October 2005 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Again:

* There are curly haired, Afro haired, wavy haired and straight haired south Asians.
They do *not* all have the same hair texture.

---

Correct. India has a diversity of populations, ranging from older more tropical ones to those from more northerly climates.

Recent archeaological evidence in Australia seems to be proving the same with Australian aboriginals-- that they descend from more than one group.

posted 09 October 2005 05:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]You have no idea whatsoever about these pictures, so don't try to pretend that these people are REGULAR UPPER EGYPTIANS, because it is highly unlikley.

The Ancient Egyptains, imported many people from the Sudan and Nubia and some of them did marry with the Egyptians, especially around Aswan and some parts of Upper Egypt.

[/B]

---