quote:Tightly coiled hair Jablonski (2006) agrees that it was evolutionarily advantageous for pre-humans (Homo erectus) to retain the hair on their heads in order to protect the skin there as they walked upright in the intense African (equatorial) UV light (Jablonski, 2006). In addition, axilliary hair (in the underarms) was likely retained as a sign of sexual maturity. During the process of going from fur to naked skin, hair texture putatively changed gradually from straight (the condition of most mammals, including humanity's closest cousins--chimpanzees), to Afro-like or 'kinky' (i.e. tightly coiled). This is supported by Iyengar's (1998) findings that the roots of straight human hair may act as fiber optic tubes that allow UV light to pass into the skin. However, it is notable that 'kinks' in fiber optic tubes are known to prevent UV light from passing through. In this sense, during the period in which humans were gradually losing their straight body hair and thereby exposing the pale skin underneath their fur to the sun, straight hair would have been an evolutionary liability. Hence, tightly coiled or 'kinky' natural afro-hair may have evolved to prevent the entry of UV light into the body during the gradual transition period towards the evolution of dark skin.
Straight hair According to the recent single origin hypothesis (the one most supported by the empirical data), anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) arose in East Africa approximately 200,000 years ago (Tishkoff, 1996). Anatomically modern behavior in terms of innovation in hunting instruments and artistic expression arose within the past 100,000-70,000 years in Africa. It was just after this period that modern humans began to expand their range to regions outside of (and within) this continent (Tishkoff, 1996). Among those in the group who left the African continent, some migrated to northern regions such as central and northeast Asia. It is hypothesized that, given their original sub-Saharan origin, these groups initially faced a special dilemma. Their dark African skin and 'kinky' African hair, both of which had evolved to minimize entry of UV light into the body, were ill-suited to the weak sunlight of these regions. This is because, some time during the period in which humanity was in Africa, their skin had developed the ability to manufacture vitamin D (which was essential for bone development) upon exposure to UV light (Jablonski, 2006). However the UV light of northern regions was too weak to penetrate the highly pigmented skin of the initial migrants in order to provide enough vitamin D for healthy bone development. Malformed bones in the pelvic area were especially deadly for women in that they interfered with the successful delivery of babies. Hence, those with lighter skin gradually survived and had children at higher rates because their skin allowed more UV light for the production of vitamin D (Jablonski, 2006). It is probable that, during the transition period from dark to light skin, the need for vitamin D grew so intense that northerners with mutations for straight hair survived and had children at higher rates. This is likely because straight fibers better facilitate the passage of UV light into the body compared to 'kinky' hair. This, again, is in accord with Iyengar's (1998) findings that UV light can pass through straight human hair roots in a manner similar to the way that light passes through fiber optic tubes.
Question: If straight hair is yet another adaptation for low-UV environments, why do some tropical populations which have retained black skin, such as the Indians and Australian aborigines, straight-haired?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I was just about to ask that same question and also wouldn't straight hair be a detriment for primates do to UV ray exposer.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to look into this as well. (Though I've since found a lot of retardation I no longer even bother to edit on wiki), I saw a few wiki articles related to hair and edited one, as they didn't make sense.
Turns out someone re-edited it and nicely contacted me about their concerns. I didn't respond and don't remember reading it and don't really feel like waisting time on wiki.
posted
Interesting topic and topic question by the way.
So according the article the first humans were either cacazoids or non-racial beings that happened to have extremely dark skin, 'generalized' features, and kinky afros. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On second thought the wiki articles still don't say anything.
And all article's I've come across basically copy from other sites too so I'd not be surprised if the same person edited them all or if this is just a sign of the limitation of resources.
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: why do some tropical populations which have retained black skin, such as the Indians and Australian aborigines, straight-haired?
Another wiki page - think it might be the "natural afro hair" page (don't bother going there) - argues for light Eurasian mixing being responsible for the trait found in the whole of Australia.
The admixture card.
They also argue that dark skin and straight hair would have been sexually selected for, hence their (Indians, Polynesians, Australians, etc) modern phenotype. This is a contradictory and paradoxical point as it comes after another section of the wiki article saying that afro hair was the only default state of human hair because straight hair/fur is dis-advantageous in hot high UV environs (same thing Tyro cites above).
from rasol on a thread started on the exact same topic (and started in respons to a wiki) by the poster Keino:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: The great diversity of aboriginal African hair as alway interest me. Straight hair is just as african as kinky/curly hair although its make up less of the majority of african hair types. Why are Africans and black people in "general" continue to view straighter hair as some sort of non-African admixture?
Indeed this claim has no basis in biology and there is emperical evidence to refute it.
^ Australian aboriginal phenotype precede the existence of Europeans or even -northern- Asians, they are descendant from peoples migrated from supra-equatorial Africa, across to southern Asian and Australia.
This implies that both wavy hair, and more to the point, the penchant for variable hair texture is pan homo-sapien trait, present in Africans prior to outmigration of non-Africans.
Genetics has also failed to reveal, any -recent- gene mutations that would account for particular hair texture.
This is in contrast with skin color, where genetics can document both the original melanoderm [black] pigmentation of all humans, and the recent genetic mutation that cause extreme de-pigmentation [leucoderm], in whites.
Genetics has made it clear that white people are not the primary 'cause' of phenotypical variation.
They are late derived in
a) geography as Europe was settled only long after australia, pacifica, and asia.
b) morphology, as white skin mutations became common in Europe's population as little as 12kya.
c) Geneology, R1b and I are the primary European paternal lineages have limited distribution outside of Europe.
Keep in mind that other than citing referrence material that has to do with possible evolutionary disadvantages for light skin in high UV high temperature environs and dark skin in low UV low temperature ones, ALL of the wiki articles cite studies and sources that primarily have to do with skin color (the natural Afro-hair section even cites a study that doesn't even mention hair AND by placement implies that the study supports their claim that tightly curled hair comes in 1-2 million years ago).
There is more variability in hair form in indigenous tropics populations (other than the Americas) than there is in Northern Eurasians probably because while tightly curled hair can work against people in cold low UV environs straighter hair doesn't as much work against people and things in tropical areas.
Just an observation.
******* Mapping it out *******
Melanin arose with the of the loss of hair in homo-homonins.
A study on louse suggests our ancestors may have started loosing hair 3.3 million yeas ago. Archaeologists suggest that hair loss developed as part of the adaptation to Africa's warm savannas because hair impeded the cooling newly evolving sweat glands facilatated, which in turn putatively evolved with of a behavioral change (that involved enginuity in hominids) that caused for more hunting by day.
The gene P2RY5 is involved in ARWH or hypotrichosis [a condition where the person has "hypo pigmented and sparse" crinkled scalp hair], but it isn't yet known whether there are any connections between this gene and world wide hair forms.
****** My hypothesis ******
All articles (2 wiki, an answers) say the "straight" hair could be disadvantageous in hot high UV areas and articles like the "natural Afro-hair" turn around to attempt to explain away how it's not so disadvantageous any more -- the article cites the same sources as the hair wiki article Tyro cites (and more), and is contradictory.
Bluntly, the UV explaination makes little sense from either plain observation of dark skinned Inuit and other America natives OR from the observation that sunlight also hits the skin so depigmentation could also serve as a way to let UV rays pass through and be converted to nutrients -- and straight hair does little if the skin won't let UV rays through -- so straight hair likely served a different function.
Getting back to the Inuit and some aboriginal Americans, they developed hair far straighter than Europeans rather quickly (which means for some groups BEFORE light skin), as did South Asians.
So:
So, quite simply, the explaination is: curled and tightly curled hair is just more efficient at radiating heat away from the body, which would explain its absence from - and less textural diversity in - more frigid areas (even certain areas in Africa can get really cool at night).
Furthermore, the "straight" hair of Northern Eurasian people seems different from much of the "wavy" and "straight" hair of people in really tropical areas. Their hair is usually more like the Austrailian Aboriginee woman that rasol posted above. The "wavy" hair in many Austrailians, Africans, and South West Asians from a distant glance just looks different -- not sure about microscopically.
Not to mention the fact that all primates and non-primates of Africa I'm aware of still have "straight" hair/fur. ("Hair" is used for humans only, but it's really fur just the same -- not to imply that straighter hair is more like other animals' fur than curly hair).
Perhaps they've all just received Caucasian admixture. Yeah that one seems to appease white folks the most so let's conclude with that. Beastiality Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about the other mummies found though, like Tuya (mother of Queen Tiy) and Yuya? Mind you I'm not doubting the Egytians hair was altered by the chemicals used during mummification,
West Africa Magazine July 8, 2001 Egyptology: Hanging in the Hair by Anu M'bantu and Fari Supia
The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair in shades that stem from brown to 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 color, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black color although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."
Trichology is the scientific analysis of hair. An instrument called a trichometer is used to measure the cross-section of a hair shaft. 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 of the analysis:
San, Southern African 55.00 Western European 71.20 Zulu, Southern African 55.00 Asian Indian 73.00 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00 Navajo American 77.00 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Chinese 82.60 Australian (Black) 68.00 Ancient Egyptians 35 to 65
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.
This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time. As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. At last, Egyptology's prayers have been answered. It has been put out of its misery.
Its tombstone reads Egyptology, R.I.P June 2001.
Archaeological Hair:
The common misconception that all hair turns red over archaeological timescales has found its way into archaeological folklore. Whilst certain environments such as those producing bog bodies are known to yield hair of a red-brown color, in part because of the breakdown of organic matter and presence of humic acids which impart a brown color to recovered remains, it has commonly been assumed that this happens to all archaeological hair. This concept has been perpetuated by popular nicknames such as "Ginger"--affectionately given to the Pre-dynastic burial with red hair on display in the mummy rooms at the British Museum.
(read complete article here)
Hair Coloring in Africa (Henna in Ancient Egypt)
Ahmose-Henttimehu 17th Dynasty (1574 BC): Henttimehu was probably a daughter of Seqnenre-Taa II and Ahmose-Inhapi.
Smith reports that the mummy of Henttimehu own hair had been dyed a bright red at the sides, probably with henna.
Reference: G. Elliott Smith, The Royal Mummies, Duckworth Publishing; (September, 2000)
posted
^My brother found that site a long time ago.
One man even call the ancient Egyptian hair "caucasian" based on the fact that it was in the 60-70 range (look below -- copied and pasted).
quote:Actually Joanne Fletcher often misquoted regarding [caucazoids] has stated that she doesn't like to use those term's with regards to hair. She doesn't use those terms at all in her current book on Nefertiti - although she does describe Nefertiti as wearing her hair in a "Nubian" style.
cynotrichous, from, cyno -> dog and trich -> hair cynotrichous -> dog's hair, meaning hair that is wavy to straight in texture like a dog's and contrasted with hair that is wooly in texture (lamb's hair).
The best method for associating hair texture with ethnicity is based on the thickness of the cross section of the hair shaft, and not it's degree of curl or it's color, which for reasons already attested can be misleading. AE hair was generally thick and africoid and not of the thin eurasian variety.
Ethnic Group Hair thickness index Badarian, pre-dynastic Egyptian 50.0 San, Southern African 55.O0 Zulu, Southern African 55.O0 Sub-Saharan Africa (ave?) 60.O0 Ancient Egypt (ave?) 60.02 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60
worth noting:
* Ancient Egyptian hair is African and provably distinct from European hair.
* notice that some Blacks Asian groups have thin hair much like Europeans, and some Black South Indians have even thinner hair than Europeans.
* for people who like to play games with cluster groups -> notice that European hair and hair texture clusters IN-BETWEEN East Asian and African.
* in terms of texture and thickness the extremes of hair are actually found in khoisanoid and diminuative type (thick and peppercorn) hair; and straight and thin east asian hair at the other extreme.
* even African wooly (afro) hair is in between peppercorn and curly.
* europeans have highly heterogenious hair types...curly bordering on afro, wavy and straight. black, brown, red, blonde (yellow) and blonde (white); attempts to assign these diverse types to the 'caucasian' hair group is just another attempt to disguise the reality of heterogeniety among Europeans.
* the only hair type that is endemic to northern europe is predominent blondism. southern europeans cluster with tropical Africans in in terms of hair and eye color.
posted
^ I should also point out that the hair texture of many black aboriginals in Asia is wavy and not really straight. Of course hair texture is not the same as hair thickness although those with wavy hair have a higher incidence of balding than those with 'kinky' hair.
quote:abusedfag wrote: 12973 posts. Where did your life go?
Into school, job, and friends, and not just here. The number indicates number of posts not how much time you spend here. But anyway my life is fine compared to YOURS which I understand is a middle-aged Java programmer whose spare time other than this forum is to be sexually abused by men. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The correlation between hair type and pigmentation as a function of cpacity for UV absorbtion is indeed a puzzle.
Nature's trick: The San are among the least pigmented Africans, yet their hair is the most tightly curled of all of Africa. Some European antropologists have causually-in a nonscientific sense-referred to San hair as of the "peppercorn" variety.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the explanations offered for the kind hair that is found generally in Africa are quite speculative.
In this vein I want to believe that the kind of hair found on all mammals--horses, dogs, primates, etc. was the norm for anatomically modern humans until quite recently.
Proof: the Australian Aboriginese retained the earlier straighter hair of Africa before the Melanesians, New Guineans and other groups such as those that became the Andaman Islanders-who migrated later--after the newer form of hair became prevalent in Africa.
Was this kind of hair--a minority of the world's hair types--selected for in some non-random way? I just have no idea.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, human aesthetics are always derived from cultural values--which in most cases have no rational explanations.
My point being that for whatever cultural reasons the kinds of hair that primates--apes, orangutans, chimps, etc., and other mammals have are generally seen as more aesthetically pleasing than the general African variety. Proof: note the amount of time and real resources that females of generic African origin spend comparatively on their hair--to achieve aesthetic enhancement.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I think aesthetics - because they're derived from cultural values which are inherently subjective and based on environments which change - aren't so easily decipherable.
I would still like to see scientific evidence on the matter.
Things to consider:
Many Asian females get surgery because of epicanthic folds. So the Afro-hair phenom (especially the in Middle-Passage descendant culture if there is one) would be surprising .. why?
Even 1st generation new immigrant Asians have written about in some youth being very self-conscious socially and the inward perceived pressure not to be appear so culturally asian.
What is 'pretty' is indeed social and probably socially instilled - look at how old people (and some not so old adults) often exclaim over how surprised they are that the child does not "comprehend" (this child right here just don't know .. child .. just runnin around ... with hair just as NAPpeh as I don't know whut Beth".
Scientists are just now find "part" of the brain oriented with societal/cultural values. [link]
There could be a biological explaination though.
One more thing -- many females spend alot of time trying - even dying trying to loose weight already at skeleton size - to look "good" so the time thing isn't surprising either.
Yo - no rational explainations is right.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
^You'r lucky I lost that picture of some rock concert I was emailed.
How would lamin explain dissidants I wonder? I'm open to dissenting views ... it's just that I've mentally developed a habit of being anti status-quo
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The correlation between hair type and pigmentation as a function of cpacity for UV absorbtion is indeed a puzzle.
Nature's trick: The San are among the least pigmented Africans, yet their hair is the most tightly curled of all of Africa. Some European antropologists have causually-in a nonscientific sense-referred to San hair as of the "peppercorn" variety.
Tyro once posted a UV map where the bands appeared to be shifted more to the South ... this made me wonder.
The San actually have tufts of hair: keeping in line what I said about heat, do tufts do the same thing napps do? Perhaps they don't radiate heat as efficiently.. it gets cooler in South Africa than people think.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Proof: the Australian Aboriginese retained the earlier straighter hair of Africa before the Melanesians, New Guineans and other groups such as those that became the Andaman Islanders-who migrated later--after the newer form of hair became prevalent in Africa.
Question: What evidence are you going by, to suggest Melanesians are not descendants of the earliest successful OOA [a.m.hs] migrants?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We note that the kind of hair found on the non-human primates is of the much straighter variety than of Africa in general. So I assume that the hair of protohumans must have been straight too.
Thus it is quite possible that the first humans to migrate OOA would have had primate-like straight hair[note: I am struck by the red, almost wispy--a la European--hair of the orangutans--in this regard]which would seem then to be a later adaptation.
But you might have point though, given that the Tasmans--who lived in the southernmost part of Australia--had the generic curled hair of Africa.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^As explorer asked you. What evidence were you going by that suggests Melanesians are not descendants of the earliest successful OOA migrants of modern humans?
Also, a quick note to T-rex, you already answered your own question. If straighter hair were an adaptation to the cold then there would be no straighter hair amongst tropical groups. The fact that the author of the wiki article also suggests that this transition from kinky or curly to straight occurred with the transition from dark to light skin, which came as a result of the need to be lighter to acquire Vitamin D through synthesis hence lighter skin is acquired, but remember, Europeans didn't become fully dependent on this Vitamin through synthesis until farming spread into Europe 6-8kya. So is the author implying that humans in Europe had kinky hair for all this time before they turned light?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That is correct. Mind you again that black aboriginals whom some of you say have "straight" hair, their hair is actually wavy and still thick and not really straight
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Nature's trick: The San are among the least pigmented Africans, yet their hair is the most tightly curled of all of Africa. Some European antropologists have causually-in a nonscientific sense-referred to San hair as of the "peppercorn" variety.
The San still live in the subtropics, but yes their 'peppercorn' hair is the most tightly coiled and is actually tighter curled than the typical kinky or so-called "nappy" hair of many other Africans.
However such a hair texture is also found among aboriginal groups such as the Andamanese of Southeast Asia, a few groups in Indonesia, and even among the Tasmanian aboriginals.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That is correct. Mind you again that black aboriginals whom some of you say have "straight" hair, their hair is actually wavy and still thick and not really straight
Yup, as you noted hair can also be wiry, fine, or coarse...
Northern Eurasian hair is also oily usually, and hair can be drier..
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: quick note to T-rex, you already answered your own question. If straighter hair were an adaptation to the cold then there would be no straighter hair amongst tropical groups.
As a population, I think groups without tightly curled hair etc either loss their crimpy hair or never had it do to the environment.
Dark skinned groups (in Asia or the Americas) that have less diversity in hair form than Europeans and *straighter* hair and retained dark skin (including Inuit).
Inuit diet negated the need to loose their melanin -> they still have straight hair.
Some Asian groups have *straighter* hair than Native Norht Americans.
This all suggest that the loss of curlier hair traits is an adaptation to a cooler environment.
Obviously, since it exists in 99.9999% of mammals with fur, straight fur doesn't originally evolve in Northern Eurasia. But do you believe that straight hair wouldn't be selected for over tightly curled hair (barring San spiral tuft hair) in a very cold environment?
IMO, the UV arguement is total BS, but the heat arguement...
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Proof: the Australian Aboriginese retained the earlier straighter hair of Africa before the Melanesians, New Guineans and other groups such as those that became the Andaman Islanders-who migrated later--after the newer form of hair became prevalent in Africa.
Question: What evidence are you going by, to suggest Melanesians are not descendants of the earliest successful OOA [a.m.hs] migrants?
I'll have to take it that the lack of response means that the above highlighted was a mistake on your part.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ take that the lack of response here means that your eight page squirming was a mistake on your part.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Proof: the Australian Aboriginese retained the earlier straighter hair of Africa before the Melanesians, New Guineans and other groups such as those that became the Andaman Islanders-who migrated later--after the newer form of hair became prevalent in Africa.
Question: What evidence are you going by, to suggest Melanesians are not descendants of the earliest successful OOA [a.m.hs] migrants?
I'll have to take it that the lack of response means that the above highlighted was a mistake on your part.
So how do you explain variation in hair form in between Oceanic groups?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ That is correct. Mind you again that black aboriginals whom some of you say have "straight" hair, their hair is actually wavy and still thick and not really straight
Even Asian hair isn't really straight and is wavy.
And some curly hair people have thin hair.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to take it that the lack of response means that the above highlighted was a mistake on your part.
So how do you explain variation in hair form in between Oceanic groups?
What is there to explain? Could it not be possible that the OOA migrants had some variation within them? Could it not also be possible that over the years, some had undergone microevolution? However, the burden of proof would be on the person who says that Melanesians are descendants of a latter migrant group than that from which the Australians descend; what is that evidence? Is it genetic; if so, what is it?
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
^ take that the lack of response here means that your eight page squirming was a mistake on your part.
Nope, it means I refused to further entertain your trolling.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was going to look into this as well. (Though I've since found a lot of retardation I no longer even bother to edit on wiki), I saw a few wiki articles related to hair and edited one, as they didn't make sense.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yeah that one seems to appease white folks the most so let's conclude with that. Beastiality 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic