quote:My theory which Swenet agrees is that loose hair is an adaptation to arid conditions, especially desert like climates as that was the situation for the OOA migrants as it is for the African Saharans and Sahelians as it is for Australian aboriginals—-ALL of whom have loose wavy hair!
How then do we explain the hair of the Southern African San who apparently evolved in extremely dry desert conditions. The Kalahari and Namib deserts are vast areas that have been like the Sahel and Sahara zones in terms of ecology, climate, etc. They have been in that area for more than 25,000 years yet they are not as heavily pigmented as Sahel groups such as the Dogon, Dinka or Nuer. On the other hand the hair is extremely coiled--more so that other African groups.
The most apt theory it seems is one based on the idea of "population isolates" living for thousands of years and breeding among themselves uniquely. [It's much the same way that languages develop--but at a much faster rate].
These "population isolates" over time develop traits that have no particular adaptive value one way or another. Thus hair forms of any type could develop in any climatic conditions. There does seem however that pigmentation is subject to adaptive pressures on account of the effect of UV rays. The same may be said for average population heights. The San are small and gracile yet the Dinka are quite tall. The same for nasal forms. Nasal forms of any metric can evolve anywhere and ultimate averages are determined only by the contingencies of the breeding mechanisms within population isolates.
If hair forms evolved according to climatic principles then how does one explain male pattern baldness--if the ultimate adaptive value of cranial hair is to offer some sort of protection against UV rays or in tropical regions, cranial cooling?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: My theory which Swenet agrees is that loose hair is an adaptation to arid conditions, especially desert like climates as that was the situation for the OOA migrants as it is for the African Saharans and Sahelians as it is for Australian aboriginals—-ALL of whom have loose wavy hair!
Notice Djhootie tries to pull a fast one here. Instead of talking about very straight hair as many Asian Indians have he is switching to his own terminology for a different hair type of his own terminology "loose wavy".
His alternative theory which is not held by scientists is that "loose wavy" hair is an adaptation to arid conditions but no reasoning is given why such hair would be more advantageous in dry conditions. He thinks such hair has deep roots in North African ancestry that go back before any foreigners such as Phoenicians entered the region. But as I have pointed out to his ass before Khosians do not have anything close to this type of hair. So then some acrobatics ensue, that Khosians lived in some less arid conditions back in the day. This type of maneuvering can be applied whenever convenient. One could make arguments that people have not been in NA long enough time for this hypothetically reasoned change to occur and furthermore the Sahara hasn't been arid for that long.
He also theorizes skin lightening takes a long time. The latest research , we've all seen the Europeans Pale skin article a million times say that skin color change is shorter than once thought. But the point is irrelevant and works against his own position. The topic is Indians and Australians both dark skin. In fact hair change takes much longer than skin color , the opposite of his claim. I challenge anybody to show article book evidence otherwise.
Most Asian Indians have straight hair and dark skin. So we don't even have to go to a much much further location away from the exit from Africa OOA migrants who would eventually end up in Australia.
Why is there so much straight hair in India and so little in Sahelians or Maghebians who are of pure African descent? Obviously it is not an adaptation to arid conditions of the Sahara or it would be much more common. There would be isolated tribe of North Africans/Sahelians where they all had straight hair.
Straight hair is more divergent from tightly coiled afro type hair than is wavy or curly. yet the Sahara is drier than most of India. Any fool can see straight hair is very common all over the colder Northern hemisphere and afro kinky hair is not.
^^^ The Indus Valley Civilization
Pakistan is located on a great landmass north of the tropic of capricorn (between latitudes 77° and 87° N), it has a continental type of climate characterized by extreme variations of temperature, both seasonally and daily. This is why so many Indians have straight hair, colder temperatures. Kinky hair is more suited to humid climates so perspiration can release easily. Why don't the Amazonian have it? It's more evidence that it takes much longer for hair type to change.
The basic problem is there is no logic behind straight hair being more suited to dry climates
Djehooties theories defy common sense and published theories on the evolution of hair. They are politically motivated
Posts: 43094 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Admittedly, there are no strict causal lines between human traits and environmental conditions except in some fairly evident cases.
Take the case of Western Jews who are just as depigmented as other Westerners yet they seem to have a perennial problem with their hair which can run from straight to kinky as the following shows.
quote:Pakistan is located on a great landmass north of the tropic of capricorn (between latitudes 77° and 87° N), it has a continental type of climate characterized by extreme variations of temperature, both seasonally and daily.
Geography lesson anyone?
Pakistan is 32 degrees North of the Equator and above the Tropic of Cancer.
It is on the approximately the same latitude as Georgia in the U.S. and Morocco in North Africa. The subtropics is defined as any area whose latitude is between 23.5 degrees to 40 degrees N/S of the equator. Pakistan is a subtropical country.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course, since those types of climatic zones are delimited by geographic zones, you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters.
Finally. That's all racial types are [enviro-climatic metric/non-metric constellations]. Yet you deny they exist. They aren't arbitrary, as you now admit, since racial traits in origin were geograpically delineated as climatic adaptations. Someone can't then choose x, y, z randomly and attatch a label to it.
quote:This doesn't support typology, you dumb wanker, because the said zones aren't specific to any racial group.
Immediately contradicting your previous statement: "you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters".
quote:These are some of the most linear populations you'll find. You know full well what Coon said about their body builds. You don’t even want to go there, trust me.
Post-cranial indices are more complex. Many aren't racial.
quote:This shows how what a fraud you are. You know squat about anthropology. Only a moron would find it reasonable to suggest that narrow noses are selected for in wet tropical forest.
Back to "you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters" again.
Make up your mind.
quote:Moving the goalpost. Proving my claim that non-negroid traits evolved in Africa does not necessitate the presence of Caucasian typology.
You've yet to show a single UP African specimen with Caucasoid features. I'm not sure why you claim its moving the goalpost, when you are the one claiming all features are indigenous to Africa. Yet you can't find a single prehistoric fossil with them. Sheer lunacy.
quote:And you're lying out of your ass. Nothing has been retracted, and the Gamble Cave remains aren't even the most non-negroid of the bunch. Marginalizing their phenotype and making them appear anomalous in the region only further stomps your dumbass claims into the group, as Elmenteita A is clearly more divergent from the Negroid typology than Gamble Cave 4 and 5, and Elmenteita A is intact.
The Elmenteitan remains are post-Pleistocene, not UP. They don't help you.
Elmenteita A also has prognathism:
"There is some definite protrusion of the maxillary bone below the nose...there is some alveolar prognathism" (Rightmire, 1975)
Give it up. Not a single early prehistoric orthognathic-leptorrhine fossils exists in Africa. Caucasoid features did not evolve there.
quote:Circular reasoning again. If I ask your dumbass why they're admixed, you'll tell me that they have non-negroid typology. I then ask you to prove that there is such a thing as a group that is purely of negroid typology, and you point to the non-sequitor and fabrication that there is no non-negroid group in Upper Palaeolithic. All you do is argue in circles and use logical fallacies. Outside of simply repeating that ortochnathism is caucasoid, you neglect to prove why its caucasoid with actual evidence outside of the paradigm of typology. When a paradigm is being questioned, you can't prove the validity of that paradigm, by using the logic that's inherent to that paradigm. That's like someone trying to convince an atheist that Noah's flood happened ’’because Genesis says so’’. This is the type of impaired thinking that you feel comfortable in. You bask in it. LMAO.
Back now to "said zones aren't specific to any racial group"...
Are they are not? You keep shifting positions:
"said zones aren't specific to any racial group"
"you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters"
quote:This is irrelevant mumbo jumbo. Address what I was saying. If the remains I posted are outliers because they were platyrrhine and prognathous, explain why the ortochnathous and narrow nosed European UP fossils STILL don't cluster with Europeans over other populations?
Those studies aren't typological. This has already been explained.
quote:Quintin 2006 said that the broad nosed and prognathous UP European samples were typical of UP Europeans in general
He's wrong. I asked for you to show a full list, instead you've resorted to picture spams.
quote:Another example of how you stretch racial typologies (when convenient) to include whatever you want to include (only to call others 'lumpers'). First you Euroloons call European Upper Palaeolithic fossils 'Caucasoid' even though they cluster closer to certain Africans, Southeast Asians and Oceanians. Now you Euroloons call the long Neurocranium having Upper Cave skull 'mongoloid'. LMAO.
Do you mean dolichocephaly? There's three skulls from that site, as Wu notes:
"[T]here is no reason to consider the Upper Cave fossils are representing anything other than a Mongoloid population" (Wu, 1961)
They have typical Mongoloid features. Turner (1992) for example notes that his Sinodont pattern was “present in the late Pleistocene north China Upper cave crania”.
You can get into many more traits, but Palaeo-Mongoloids and Palaeo-Caucasoids had dolichocephalic skulls, so this is no evidence of 'African' affinity. Yes, Dana, and the other Afroloons make the dolichocephalic = "Black", brachycephalic = "White or Asian" equation, is this where you got it from?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pakistan is located on a great landmass north of the tropic of capricorn (between latitudes 77° and 87° N), it has a continental type of climate characterized by extreme variations of temperature, both seasonally and daily.
Geography lesson anyone?
Pakistan is 32 degrees North of the Equator and above the Tropic of Cancer.
It is on the approximately the same latitude as Georgia in the U.S. and Morocco in North Africa. The subtropics is defined as any area whose latitude is between 23.5 degrees to 40 degrees N/S of the equator. Pakistan is a subtropical country.
My quote made refernce to the Eurasia landmass of which Pakistan resides
It is silly to assume the climate of Pakistan home to many mountain ranges such as the Hindu Kush is similar to Georgia and Morroco because it is at a similar latitude.
Pakistan lies in the temperate zone. Temperature in Islamabad, which is the capital city of Pakistan, varies from 2°C (35.6 F) in the winter in January to 40 C (104°F) in June. So the climate of Pakistan can be called to be extreme. There is snow in some of the mountainous regions.
The temperature is more uniform in Karachi than in Islamabad, ranging from an average daily low of 13° C (55.4 F) during winter evenings to an average daily high of 34° C (93 F) on summer days.
Weather for Srinagar (North Paksitan) and Kasmir India at the current moment is 3 C (37 F)
Marrakech , other hand is at this moment 20 C (67 F) in the winter.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course, since those types of climatic zones are delimited by geographic zones, you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters.
Finally. That's all racial types are [enviro-climatic metric/non-metric constellations].
What do you mean ''finally'', you dumbass. Africa offers plenty of the said environmental zones (Sahel, Sahara, Kalahari, the region along the red sea and the region opposite of Madagascar), as do ALL continents. That means that the traits in question **cannot** be consistent with typology (which states that heterogeneity necessarily suggest the presence of multipe races) per definition.
This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc."
Nowhere does it say that heterogeneity is only to be explained through racial admixture (like you're falsely claiming).
quote:Immediately contradicting your previous statement: "you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters".
Only if you're so dumb that you don't realize that those ''certain geographical parameters'' I and Gill mentioned, exist on ALL continents, as explained above.
quote:Post-cranial indices are more complex. Many aren't racial.
LMAO. Dumbass, they have the same slight muscle markings/feminine build you've called ''negroid'' and ''non-Caucasoid'' plenty of times. Now they're ''not racial''? How do you justify to yourself that you're such a fraud? LMAO. What do you say to yourself to not have to deal with how much of a lying fraud you are?
quote:Back to "you're going to find the said traits in certain geographical parameters" again.
I've never left that position, that's exactly why I'm saying that Central Africa isn't one of those geographical parameters, but the Sahel, Sahara, Kalahari desert, the region along the red sea and the region opposite of Madagascar are. If you find this contradicting, maybe your IQ is just too low.
quote:You've yet to show a single UP African specimen with Caucasoid features. I'm not sure why you claim its moving the goalpost, when you are the one claiming all features are indigenous to Africa.
Yes, you're low IQ indeed. I've just told your dumbass that I don't need to prove the presence of Caucasoid traits in Africa, to prove that non-negroid traits evolved there, and you just repeat your request for the very Caucasoid traits that I've just told your dumbass are irrelevant to prove my claims. LMAO.
quote:The Elmenteitan remains are post-Pleistocene, not UP. They don't help you.
Strawman argument and red herring. I've never said that Elmenteita A was Upper Palaeolithic. I posted it to refute your dumbass claim that we don't really know what they looked like because: ''The skulls are though too damaged to make accurate reconstructions''.
quote:Back now to "said zones aren't specific to any racial group"...
Now that I've show above that you're hallucinating when you try to accuse me of flip flopping, address this post again will ya, and this time, without the blatant lie that I'm flip-flopping:
Circular reasoning again. If I ask your dumbass why they're admixed, you'll tell me that they have non-negroid typology. I then ask you to prove that there is such a thing as a group that is purely of negroid typology, and you point to the non-sequitor and fabrication that there is no non-negroid group in Upper Palaeolithic. All you do is argue in circles and use logical fallacies. Outside of simply repeating that ortochnathism is caucasoid, you neglect to prove why its caucasoid with actual evidence outside of the paradigm of typology. When a paradigm is being questioned, you can't prove the validity of that paradigm, by using the logic that's inherent to that paradigm. That's like someone trying to convince an atheist that Noah's flood happened ’’because Genesis says so’’. This is the type of impaired thinking that you feel comfortable in. You bask in it. LMAO.
quote:Those studies aren't typological. This has already been explained.
What do you mean those studies aren't typological? You've said yourself that narrow nosed Abri Pataud and Chandelade weren't Caucasoid, what does the set-up of a study have to do with anything?
quote:He's wrong. I asked for you to show a full list, instead you've resorted to picture spams.
He isn't wrong you dumbass. European UP fossils generally cluster together in multivariate space because they have low vaults, short faces, rectangular eye sockets and long neurocrania (all decidedly un-European).
Crania to the right of the plot exhibit tall faces, and crania to the bottom of the plot exhibit long vaults and short orbits. --Grine 2007
That many fossils have broad nose and prognathism, and others do not, doesn't detangle that cluster you dumbass.
quote:Do you mean dolichocephaly? There's three skulls from that site, as Wu notes:
You just keep doing the same thing over and over. You cite sources that either aren't reproduced by other authors and/or that weren't basing their claims on statistical analysis. Get that pseudo-science outta my face.
quote:You can get into many more traits, but Palaeo-Mongoloids and Palaeo-Caucasoids had dolichocephalic skulls, so this is no evidence of 'African' affinity.
You're retarded. First you say that the Zhoukoudian skulls display mongoloid typology, even though they DON'T. And when you're forced to admit that, you go off on a tangent on whether that means they're African. LMAO.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
LOL. Nice wiggle away try. You posted the map of the Pakistan area and you talked about it being located in a landmass being "between 77 degrees and 87 degrees North"[ of the Equator]. LOL. Now where on earth(literally) would that be?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My theory which Swenet agrees is that loose hair is an adaptation to arid conditions, especially desert like climates as that was the situation for the OOA migrants as it is for the African Saharans and Sahelians as it is for Australian aboriginals—-ALL of whom have loose wavy hair!
How then do we explain the hair of the Southern African San who apparently evolved in extremely dry desert conditions.
You're just assuming this because they live there today. If not, prove that Khoisan are adapted to those environments.
With the exception of SOME khoisan, particularly in the !Kung group, they don't evince adaptation to hot-dry regions in their face, like these Nilo-Saharans in Southern Ethiopia, for example, do:
posted
^Its just one of my hunches, which I don't necessarily subscribe to as much as I use to. Usually I just explain it in terms of clinal distribution of ecological factors, without necessarily trying to pin it down to a single selective pressure.
Whatever caused Levantines and Arabs to have it, would caused long term inhabitants of the Sahara to have it too.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Africa offers plenty of the said environmental zones (Sahel, Sahara, Kalahari, the region along the red sea and the region opposite of Madagascar), as do ALL continents.
No they don't. There is only one type of adaptation in Africa: heat, of which is divided into two environments: humid heat and dry heat.
Coon et al, 1950 -
"(1) Negroid: all peoples showing special adaptation to bright light and intense heat."
There is no temperate or cold adaptation zones in Africa. Look at the Koppen Climate Map.
quote:That means that the traits in question **cannot** be consistent with typology (which states that heterogeneity necessarily suggest the presence of multipe races) per definition.
No it means you lack basic education in geography and climate.
quote:Only if you're so dumb that you don't realize that those ''certain geographical parameters'' I and Gill mentioned, exist on ALL continents, as explained above.
Where is the temperate or cold climatic zone on Africa?
quote:LMAO. Dumbass, they have the same slight muscle markings/feminine build you've called ''negroid'' and ''non-Caucasoid'' plenty of times. Now they're ''not racial''? How do you justify to yourself that you're such a fraud? LMAO. What do you say to yourself to not have to deal with how much of a lying fraud you are?
I don't know what you are talking about. I've been sceptical about post-cranial indices from day 1. I even uploaded a thread on Jesse Owens' crural index. Many of these have proven unreliable in forensic anthropology.
quote:I don't need to prove the presence of Caucasoid traits in Africa, to prove that non-negroid traits evolved there
So non-Negroid traits evolved in Africa, but all the fossils just magically disappeared?
What I asked from you was simple: if Caucasoid features appeared as adaptations native to Africa, where are the fossils that show this?
quote:The Elmenteitan remains are post-Pleistocene, not UP. They don't help you. Strawman argument and red herring. I've never said that Elmenteita A was Upper Palaeolithic. I posted it to refute your dumbass claim that we don't really know what they looked like because: ''The skulls are though too damaged to make accurate reconstructions''.
Yea... you still fail to show a single fossil.
Why do you hold your beliefs in light of the fact there is zero evidence for them?
Like I said, all I asked was for you to find a prehistoric [early or UP] Africa skull with Caucasoid traits. As you know, none exist. So why claim Caucasoid traits evolved there? Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Africa offers plenty of the said environmental zones (Sahel, Sahara, Kalahari, the region along the red sea and the region opposite of Madagascar), as do ALL continents.
No they don't. There is only one type of adaptation in Africa: heat, of which is divided into two environments: humid heat and dry heat.
Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a trait influenced by the forces of selection. These are related to the relative lack of moisture in inspired air (Glan-ville, 1969). That in turn is only very tenuously determined by the intensity of solar radiation. Air in tropical deserts, of course, is obviously arid (...) --Brace 1993
Weiner (1954) reworked the data collected by Thomson and Buxton (1923) using wet bulb temperature and the vapor pressure of the air as additional climatic variables'that may be correlated with Nasal Index. In 146 groups studied Weiner (1954) found nasal index to be most highly correlated with the vapor pressure of the air(r = 0.82) and he postulated, that the functional basis underlying the Nasal Index - climate relationship is the humidification of the inspired air. --Leon, 1975
Stop wasting my time, dufus. Either prove Glanville, Leon etc wrong, or shut your trap.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're just assuming this because they live there today. If not, prove that Khoisan are adapted to those environments.
The San have been in Kalahari desert area for at least 27,000 years based on the age estimation of their Cave Art in the Western Cape of South Africa. That part of Africa is just outside the tropics in its most southerly portion. There has been snow in South Africa and in the winter it is freezing. So here we have a group of people living for at least 25,000 years in cool/cold arid conditions. The climate of South Africa is really like that of the Mediterranean: wheat, grapes, and apples are easily grown there.
The San is less pigmented than other Africans further North but their hair is much more coiled. Compare Wole Soyinka's white "bird's nest" topping with the hair of the average San. There is a palpable difference.
My take on the matter is apart from pigmentation which is causally dependent on the extent of UV rays, other human physiognomic traits evolve mainly on the principle of contingent assorted mated derived from population isolation.
This explains the fact that while North East Asians are much more on par with Europeans in terms of pigmentation their nasal forms(indices) and facial structure(generally short and round with high cheek bones) are consonant with certain African populations.
As I have heard it put colloquially: "Chinese people have flat noses and chinky eyes". The East Asian epicanthic fold is also found among the San in Southern Africa.
And yet East Asian hair is distinct from European hair in that many Europeans do have wavy, curly, even kinky hair despite evolving in cold and arid climates. My links to "Jewish hair" bear this out.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: How then do we explain the hair of the Southern African San who apparently evolved in extremely dry desert conditions. The Kalahari and Namib deserts are vast areas that have been like the Sahel and Sahara zones in terms of ecology, climate, etc. They have been in that area for more than 25,000 years yet they are not as heavily pigmented as Sahel groups such as the Dogon, Dinka or Nuer. On the other hand the hair is extremely coiled--more so that other African groups.
Your question above was answered before on multiple occasions, though I don't know if you or others asked it. But basically the the ancestors of the San did NOT originally live in desert environment. During the glacial maximum of the late Pleistocene at the time of OOA. Southern Africa was not only humid but a wetland type of environment. The Kalahari and Namib deserts formed only recently.
quote:The most apt theory it seems is one based on the idea of "population isolates" living for thousands of years and breeding among themselves uniquely. [It's much the same way that languages develop--but at a much faster rate].
These "population isolates" over time develop traits that have no particular adaptive value one way or another. Thus hair forms of any type could develop in any climatic conditions. There does seem however that pigmentation is subject to adaptive pressures on account of the effect of UV rays. The same may be said for average population heights. The San are small and gracile yet the Dinka are quite tall. The same for nasal forms. Nasal forms of any metric can evolve anywhere and ultimate averages are determined only by the contingencies of the breeding mechanisms within population isolates.
If hair forms evolved according to climatic principles then how does one explain male pattern baldness--if the ultimate adaptive value of cranial hair is to offer some sort of protection against UV rays or in tropical regions, cranial cooling?
Male pattern baldness has NOTHING to do with hair form but is the natural result of side-effects of testosterone on certain individuals whose cells cannot metabolize certain toxic effects of the hormone properly. (Note male pattern baldness is observed in a number of species of mammals including our closest relatives chimpanzees) Though those with thin, non eliptical type hair are more susceptible to hair loss than thicker or more eliptical type hair. As for population isolates, I don't know what this has to do exactly with hair form. The Tazmanians were very much isolated yet had tightly coiled hair which differed from their relatives in mainland Australia with wavy hair. Papuans and other Melanesians had tightly coiled hair yet certain aborigines in Indonesia had wavy hair as well. Even in southern India while the majority of indigenes had wavy hair there were some small populations who had tightly curled hair as well. I don't know exactly what population isolation or congregation have anything to do with hair form.
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're just assuming this because they live there today. If not, prove that Khoisan are adapted to those environments.
The San have been in Kalahari desert area for at least 27,000 years based on the age estimation of their Cave Art in the Western Cape of South Africa.
How do you know extant San are descendants of Stone Age Kalahari groups? Its just an assumption--one that isn't corroborated by their morphology. They're clearly adapted to a high lattitude, as that is what their bodyplan indirectly bespeaks (limb ratios, skin color), but what part of their morphology suggest specialization to the Kalahari desert?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Exactly! These folks assume that the environments back in those times were the same as today!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: Notice Djhootie tries to pull a fast one here. Instead of talking about very straight hair as many Asian Indians have he is switching to his own terminology for a different hair type of his own terminology "loose wavy".
B|tch, nobody is trying to pull off anything except YOU-- pulling sh|t out yo' lyinass!
LOL @ "Asian Indians". ALL Indians are 'Asian' but not all Indians are aboriginal. Aborigianl Indian hair is actually wavy and NOT bone straight like typical East Asian and even many northern Indians who are of Central Asian ancestry! See what I'm talking about pulling crap out your lyinass?
quote:His alternative theory which is not held by scientists is that "loose wavy" hair is an adaptation to arid conditions but no reasoning is given why such hair would be more advantageous in dry conditions. He thinks such hair has deep roots in North African ancestry that go back before any foreigners such as Phoenicians entered the region. But as I have pointed out to his ass before Khosians do not have anything close to this type of hair. So then some acrobatics ensue, that Khosians lived in some less arid conditions back in the day. This type of maneuvering can be applied whenever convenient. One could make arguments that people have not been in NA long enough time for this hypothetically reasoned change to occur and furthermore the Sahara hasn't been arid for that long.
Dumb b|tch, we (Explorer, Swenet, and I) gave you an explanation on this how many times?? You assume that the Khoisan have always lived in a desert environment when:
1. Archaeology shows the Khoisan ancestors once had territory much greater than today's Kalahari and Namib deserts
and
2. Geology shows that the mentioned deserts of southern Africa did not always exist and that Southern Africa was much more humid than it is today!
Now prove the above points above are wrong or shut the hell up about Khoisan people whom you use as a pathetic strawman.
quote:He also theorizes skin lightening takes a long time. The latest research , we've all seen the Europeans Pale skin article a million times say that skin color change is shorter than once thought. But the point is irrelevant and works against his own position. The topic is Indians and Australians both dark skin. In fact hair change takes much longer than skin color , the opposite of his claim. I challenge anybody to show article book evidence otherwise.
LOL Dumb B|tch, the article you cite clearly states that European PALENESS happened relatively recently! So what are you saying, then? That the ancestors of Europeans were black and only recently turned pale??! LOL We told your dumbass before, that before Europeans turned pale they had to have already been relatively light already and that such a light complexion from their original dark (BLACK) coloring of their tropical ancestors took greater time! Your stupid ass keeps confusing European paleness or 'whiteness' for lighter skin in general! LMAO
quote:Most Asian Indians have straight hair and dark skin. So we don't even have to go to a much much further location away from the exit from Africa OOA migrants who would eventually end up in Australia.
Yet Most Indians have genetic influence POST the original OOA southern coastal route and even more recently from Central Asia. Most Indians-- the vast majority live in the NORTH. The article I cited talks about SOUTHERN Indians, and particularly isolated tribal groups! Their hair is not straight but wavy like Australian aborigines and Saharan Africans.
quote:Why is there so much straight hair in India and so little in Sahelians or Maghebians who are of pure African descent? Obviously it is not an adaptation to arid conditions of the Sahara or it would be much more common. There would be isolated tribe of North Africans/Sahelians where they all had straight hair.
Straight hair is more divergent from tightly coiled afro type hair than is wavy or curly. yet the Sahara is drier than most of India. Any fool can see straight hair is very common all over the colder Northern hemisphere and afro kinky hair is not.
I answered your dumbass above. The hair of southern Indian adivasi (aboriginals) is not straight so much as wavy. Stop using ALL or MOST Indians for the specific type of Indians I am referring to.
quote:
^^^ The Indus Valley Civilization
Pakistan is located on a great landmass north of the tropic of capricorn (between latitudes 77° and 87° N), it has a continental type of climate characterized by extreme variations of temperature, both seasonally and daily. This is why so many Indians have straight hair, colder temperatures. Kinky hair is more suited to humid climates so perspiration can release easily. Why don't the Amazonian have it? It's more evidence that it takes much longer for hair type to change.
LOL
First of all, what part of 'southern coastal route' do you not understand? The initial OOA migrants were confined to the southern areas along the coast NOT the entire valley up to the Hindu Kush.
Second, climatic patterns today are not the same as it was back then.
And third, many Indians have post southern coastal ancestry, dummy! That's why the genetic study I cited only looked to SOUTHERN Indians NOT northern Indians, dumbass!
Also, your dumbass doesn't know that northern Indian has a large desert i.e. the Thar desert which IS dry and has many aboriginal groups.
quote:The basic problem is there is no logic behind straight hair being more suited to dry climates
The basic problem is that your dumbass lacks basic logic or even an understanding of bio-anthropology, geologic history, or population history. You are just relying on ignorant Eurocentric sh|t out yo' ass.
quote:Djehooties theories defy common sense and published theories on the evolution of hair. They are politically motivated
LMAO My theories are based on actual evidence unlike YOURS dumbass! That's why you pull sh|t out yo' ass like loose hair evolving in the Afghan area when the OOA southern coastal folks who later settled Australia never passed through that area! That's why you have these idiotic theories that they lingered in the north long enough to have lighter skins but then darkened when they moved further south! YOUR whole premise reeks of political agendas, b|tch! So quit projecting hypocritical twit! Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you know extant San are descendants of Stone Age Kalahari groups? Its just an assumption--one that isn't corroborated by their morphology. They're clearly adapted to a high lattitude, as that is what their bodyplan indirectly bespeaks (limb ratios, skin color), but what part of their morphology suggest specialization to the Kalahari desert?
On the basis that the oldest African haplogroups in Africa are found among the Khoisan. And we don't have any evidence that some prior group living in the area went extinct. The human race began East/Southern Africa and given how humans have migrated far and wide on this earth, it would have been a cake-walk for some to have just walked South into Southern Africa thousands of years ago.
The Kalahari was mostly desert as of 12,000 years ago. The Sahara was supported agriculture until about 6,000 years ago when populations began moving to settlements off the Nile.
As I said: apart from colour other human physiognomic traits arise from contingent mating patterns among members of isolate populations regardless of climatic and geographic locations.
In other words, explanations of hair forms based on climate considerations is just too speculative and 18th century for serious scientific consideration. To say that tightly curled was selected for--on the basis that it helped in cooling the scalp is just speculation. Same for straight hair and arid conditions. We just don't have the empirical causal evidence.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Africa offers plenty of the said environmental zones (Sahel, Sahara, Kalahari, the region along the red sea and the region opposite of Madagascar), as do ALL continents.
No they don't. There is only one type of adaptation in Africa: heat, of which is divided into two environments: humid heat and dry heat.
Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a trait influenced by the forces of selection. These are related to the relative lack of moisture in inspired air (Glan-ville, 1969). That in turn is only very tenuously determined by the intensity of solar radiation. Air in tropical deserts, of course, is obviously arid (...) --Brace 1993
Weiner (1954) reworked the data collected by Thomson and Buxton (1923) using wet bulb temperature and the vapor pressure of the air as additional climatic variables'that may be correlated with Nasal Index. In 146 groups studied Weiner (1954) found nasal index to be most highly correlated with the vapor pressure of the air(r = 0.82) and he postulated, that the functional basis underlying the Nasal Index - climate relationship is the humidification of the inspired air. --Leon, 1975
Stop wasting my time, dufus. Either prove Glanville, Leon etc wrong, or shut your trap.
"The second prediction, that trends in nasal cavityshape follow climatic trends of increased difficulty of airconditioning: from hot–humid to cold–dry, was also supported. From the PLS analysis it is shown that nasal cavity shape depends on a combination of both temperature and vapor pressure factors. Maximum covariation between nasal cavity shape and climatic factors follows a cline from hot–humid to cold–dry climate, via hot–dry and cold–humid climate. Temperate populations score intermediate. Although vapor pressure and temperature factors both have similar loadings on the first PLS dimension, the grouping of the populations indicates that the main difference in shape is related to temperature (see Fig. 5). This contradicts the notion that humidity should play a more important role in nasal climate adaptation, as humidification is a more important factor for air-conditioning than temperature adjustment (Negus, 1958)."
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Male pattern baldness has NOTHING to do with hair form but is the natural result of side-effects of testosterone on certain individuals whose cells cannot metabolize certain toxic effects of the hormone properly. (Note male pattern baldness is observed in a number of species of mammals including our closest relatives chimpanzees) Though those with thin, non eliptical type hair are more susceptible to hair loss than thicker or more eliptical type hair. As for population isolates, I don't know what this has to do exactly with hair form. The Tazmanians were very much isolated yet had tightly coiled hair which differed from their relatives in mainland Australia with wavy hair. Papuans and other Melanesians had tightly coiled hair yet certain aborigines in Indonesia had wavy hair as well. Even in southern India while the majority of indigenes had wavy hair there were some small populations who had tightly curled hair as well. I don't know exactly what population isolation or congregation have anything to do with hair form.
My point is just being reinforced. My hypothesis is that climatic conditions play no selective role in the hair forms of populations. Hair forms evolve on a purely contingent basis according to the equally contingent mating patterns among members of isolated populations.
If hair forms had any adaptive value in the sense of protecting the scalp then baldness would no longer occur in the case of humans--because hair would be needed to perform its adaptive function--such as cooling the scalp, protecting the scalp from the sun's rays, etc. But males of all geographical locations experience male pattern baldness.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: My point is just being reinforced. My hypothesis is that climatic conditions play no selective role in the hair forms of populations. Hair forms evolve on a purely contingent basis according to the equally contingent mating patterns among members of isolated populations.
How is your point that hair form is sexual selection and not natural selection, when hair form varies from population to population but NOT between sexes of the population. For example among Khoisan who have the tightest coiled hair in the world the same is true for females as with males and the situation is true for Europeans where males and females have the same hair type.
quote:If hair forms had any adaptive value in the sense of protecting the scalp then baldness would no longer occur in the case of humans--because hair would be needed to perform its adaptive function--such as cooling the scalp, protecting the scalp from the sun's rays, etc. But males of all geographical locations experience male pattern baldness.
Did you not read my response?! Male pattern baldness is the result of a disorder among some individual males in metabolizing their testosterone as they age. It has has NOTHING to do with adaptation or hair form! Male pattern baldness depends on the individual. Some males are more predisposed than others, yet certain hair types fall out more easily than others. If your hypothesis holds true, then there wouldn't be any reason for males to have hair at all!
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The Kalahari was mostly desert as of 12,000 years ago. The Sahara was supported agriculture until about 6,000 years ago when populations began moving to settlements off the Nile.
Correct. This begs the question. How can Khoisan be adapted to arid desert environments at all if they've been living in the area for well over 60,000 years yet the Kalahari or at least its range is nowhere as old??!
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Africa offers plenty of the said environmental zones (Sahel, Sahara, Kalahari, the region along the red sea and the region opposite of Madagascar), as do ALL continents.
No they don't. There is only one type of adaptation in Africa: heat, of which is divided into two environments: humid heat and dry heat.
Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a trait influenced by the forces of selection. These are related to the relative lack of moisture in inspired air (Glan-ville, 1969). That in turn is only very tenuously determined by the intensity of solar radiation. Air in tropical deserts, of course, is obviously arid (...) --Brace 1993
Weiner (1954) reworked the data collected by Thomson and Buxton (1923) using wet bulb temperature and the vapor pressure of the air as additional climatic variables'that may be correlated with Nasal Index. In 146 groups studied Weiner (1954) found nasal index to be most highly correlated with the vapor pressure of the air(r = 0.82) and he postulated, that the functional basis underlying the Nasal Index - climate relationship is the humidification of the inspired air. --Leon, 1975
Stop wasting my time, dufus. Either prove Glanville, Leon etc wrong, or shut your trap.
"The second prediction, that trends in nasal cavityshape follow climatic trends of increased difficulty of airconditioning: from hot–humid to cold–dry, was also supported. From the PLS analysis it is shown that nasal cavity shape depends on a combination of both temperature and vapor pressure factors. Maximum covariation between nasal cavity shape and climatic factors follows a cline from hot–humid to cold–dry climate, via hot–dry and cold–humid climate. Temperate populations score intermediate. Although vapor pressure and temperature factors both have similar loadings on the first PLS dimension, the grouping of the populations indicates that the main difference in shape is related to temperature (see Fig. 5). This contradicts the notion that humidity should play a more important role in nasal climate adaptation, as humidification is a more important factor for air-conditioning than temperature adjustment (Negus, 1958)."
Dumbass, you're only proving my point. Their samples clearly sort in manner that is expected if air humidity is the selective pressure (e.g., it goes from cold-dry, cold-humid, temperate, and then you get tropical samples, i.e., hot-dry and hot-humid).
Their analysis is also problematic, because they didn't even include groups for which long term residence in hot-dry regions is proven (their hot-dry samples consists of Bushmen Bantu speakers and Australian Aboriginals). If they'd include are Arab, Mojave, African Horn, Thar and Indus Valley desert samples, just to name a few, the hot-dry region would be just as distant from the hot-humid samples.
posted
1) Male pattern baldness is passed on genetically. It is not a disorder. Just as the ancestors of humans lost their tails millions of years ago on account of its non-adaptability so too the genes for male pattern baldness would have disappeared by now because baldness affords no advantage in terms of scalp protection according to the theories being mounted on the matter.
The arguments proposed are that hair form are causally linked to environmental and climatic conditions. I argue against that. The simple reason is that science has not been able to establish direct empirical links to these causalities.
The Kalahari and Namib deserts were on the path towards desertification some 1.2 million years ago. By 200,000 years ago the land was already parched and supported specific desert flora and fauna. The point is that the San have been living in desert and desert-like conditions ever since they set foot in Southern Africa. And that is more than 27,000 years ago based on their Cave art.
Again, the point is that we do not have scientific proof that humid tropical climates produce tightly curled hair and that dry desertic conditions produce straight hair. Claims in this direction are purely speculative.
This reminds of the Lyn-Rushton hypothesis that colder climates select for higher intelligence that warm/hot climates based purely on repported IQ scores for African, Europeans, and Asians.
My first point is simply saying that when you have population isolates--the world norm until quite recently--reproductive patterns are limited to just that isolate space. As a result particular traits become modal for particular groups.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you know extant San are descendants of Stone Age Kalahari groups? Its just an assumption--one that isn't corroborated by their morphology. They're clearly adapted to a high lattitude, as that is what their bodyplan indirectly bespeaks (limb ratios, skin color), but what part of their morphology suggest specialization to the Kalahari desert?
On the basis that the oldest African haplogroups in Africa are found among the Khoisan. And we don't have any evidence that some prior group living in the area went extinct. The human race began East/Southern Africa and given how humans have migrated far and wide on this earth, it would have been a cake-walk for some to have just walked South into Southern Africa thousands of years ago.
The Kalahari was mostly desert as of 12,000 years ago. The Sahara was supported agriculture until about 6,000 years ago when populations began moving to settlements off the Nile.
As I said: apart from colour other human physiognomic traits arise from contingent mating patterns among members of isolate populations regardless of climatic and geographic locations.
In other words, explanations of hair forms based on climate considerations is just too speculative and 18th century for serious scientific consideration. To say that tightly curled was selected for--on the basis that it helped in cooling the scalp is just speculation. Same for straight hair and arid conditions. We just don't have the empirical causal evidence.
Read my question again. How do you know, that those proto-San populations were the ancestors of extant San populations? You do know that San populations are highly divergent, even amongst each other right?
The study also found surprising stratification among Khoe-San groups. For example, the researchers estimate that the San populations from northern Namibia and Angola separated from the Khoe and San populations living in South Africa as early as 25,000 -- 40,000 years ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120920141139.htm
Those proto-San you're referring to might very well be a distant twig of the proto-San branch that didn't leave descendants.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
First of all, what part of 'southern coastal route' do you not understand? The initial OOA migrants were confined to the southern areas along the coast NOT the entire valley up to the Hindu Kush.
Second, climatic patterns today are not the same as it was back then.
And third, many Indians have post southern coastal ancestry, dummy! That's why the genetic study I cited only looked to SOUTHERN Indians NOT northern Indians, dumbass!
Also, your dumbass doesn't know that northern Indian has a large desert i.e. the Thar desert which IS dry and has many aboriginal groups.
Stupid piece of sh!t you played yourself pointing out that North Indians have straighter hair than South Indians. That only proves my point that the colder the straighter.
Also, piece of sh!t, OOA migration routes are highly theoretical and generalized. As I explained to your dumb ass earlier there is nothing that says all people who would eventually wind up in Oceania had to always keep to the strictest southern route. Many probably setteled in certain areas for thosuands of years before moving again and some of these areas could easly have been North of the strictest southern coastal route. They didn't have maps and say to themselves "we need to get to Austrailia let's take the most efficient route" you thick dimwit
There is more than one reasonable theory as to the evolution of straight hair in Northern climates. The idea that straight hair is an adaptation to drayness doesn't even have an explanation, it's just something you made up. Obvioulsy wavy and curly types of hair are a middle points between tightly coiled kinky afro hair and bone straight hair.
That is why the location of people with "bone straight hair" extreme will give the clearest indication of the relation to climate assuming that they have been there for the thosuands of years it takes for it to occur. Look at your own bone straight hair and mediate on your boneheadedness
Chemical and Physical Behavior of Human Hair By Clarence R. Robbins 2012, pub: Springer Posts: 43094 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The San should at least have bushy hair by now
But instead they have peppercorn hair that is even less straight than the afro hair of most Africans.
And then do a comparative time frame for peopleing of North Africa and post wet period in an attempt that straight hair is an adaptation to dry climate. and don't forget the reason why it would change in such climate
fancy acrobatics and dance moves will be needed
Posts: 43094 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Their samples clearly sort in manner that is expected if air humidity is the selective pressure (e.g., it goes from cold-dry, cold-humid, temperate, and then you get tropical samples, i.e., hot-dry and hot-humid).
Their analysis is also problematic, because they didn't even include groups for which long term residence in hot-dry regions is proven (their hot-dry samples consists of Bushmen Bantu speakers and Australian Aboriginals). If they'd include are Arab, Mojave, African Horn, Thar and Indus Valley desert samples, just to name a few, the hot-dry region would be just as distant from the hot-humid samples.
Fail. [/QB]
Cold climate = greatest surface area of nasal mucosa. High surface area to volume ratio allows for more air to come into contact with mucosa, facilitating more heat, hence thinner noses.
Dry heat environments are already hot. Adaptations there will not be as thin as cold.
Leptorrhine noses are not adaptations to dry heat, only dry cold.
Yes, you fail.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Tell that to this correlation coefficient, dummy. You want to argue with something that has been statistically demonstrated?
Weiner (1954) reworked the data collected by Thomson and Buxton (1923) using wet bulb temperature and the vapor pressure of the air as additional climatic variables'that may be correlated with Nasal Index. In 146 groups studied Weiner (1954) found nasal index to be most highly correlated with the vapor pressure of the air (r = 0.82) and he postulated, that the functional basis underlying the Nasal Index - climate relationship is the humidification of the inspired air. --Leon, 1975
Are you sure you want to do that, mentally retarded jackass? LMAO:
quote:The main result of a correlation is called the correlation coefficient (or "r"). It ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. The closer r is to +1 or -1, the more closely the two variables are related.
If r is close to 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables. If r is positive, it means that as one variable gets larger the other gets larger. If r is negative it means that as one gets larger, the other gets smaller (often called an "inverse" correlation).
posted
Can you read? Temperature alongside the level of humidity is linked to nasal index, "Thomson and Buxton (1923) found a positive correlation between mean annual temperature and nasal index (r = 0. 63)". So once you add them, the thinnest noses are in cold dry. From the 2011 paper:
"Maximum covariation between nasal cavity shape and climatic factors follows a cline from hot–humid to cold–dry climate, via hot–dry and cold–humid climate"
"Combining the temperature and vapor pressure effects in the PLS analysis (see Fig. 7), and comparing this with the separate shape changes in the regression analysis (Figs. 8 and 9), it appears that in cold–dry climates it is cold temperatures that most influence the nasal aperture and anterior narrowing of the cavity, whereas it is the low vapor pressure that has a stronger influence on the nasopharynx. Both climatic factors cause a superior shift of the ethmoid foramen, which makes an extra high upper nasal cavity in cold–dry climates"
Order of thin:
Cold dry Cold humid Hot dry Hot humid
Hot dry nasal adaptations are not as thin as cold dry or even cold humid.
Leptorrhine noses are not African adaptations, nor are high nasal bridges.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thomson and Buxton (1923) found a positive correlation between mean annual temperature and nasal index (r = 0. 63)
This correlation only exists because there is a relation between humidity and temperature. In the moderate to cold temperature spectrum, the coldest regions are always the driest, but the hottest regions aren't necessarily the driest (hence, explaining the lower coefficient Thomson and Buxton (1923) obtained by sorting on temperature). So, of course, if you're going to sort all populations on temperature, you're going to get a positive correlation, but it will be weaker than the correlation obtained for the sorting on humidity. You obviously don't know the difference between causal correlation and a correlation that simply exists because two variables (temp. and nasal index) have some sort of non-casual relationship that cause them to co-vary somewhat. Hence, why your dumbass thinks you can trump the humidity-nasal index correlation by showing up with another variable (temperature) that has a weaker correlation with nasal index. LMAO.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If that were true cold humid would be high NI. It isn't.
The 2011 paper also argues temperature affects nasal size more than vapor pressure level:
"[T]he main difference in shape is related to temperature (see Fig. 5). This contradicts the notion that humidity should play a more important role in nasal climate adaptation, as humidification is a more important factor for air-conditioning than temperature adjustment (Negus, 1958)."
Hence order of thin:
Cold dry Cold humid Hot dry Hot humid
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that were true cold humid would be high NI. It isn't.
No, if it the selective pressure would have been temperature, then there wouldn't be a difference between hot-dry and hot-humid climates. This is contradicted by your own paper (see fig 5). Just throw yourself away, your own sources debunk you, useless wanker.
quote:The 2011 paper also argues temperature affects nasal size more than vapor pressure level:
You're merely repeating yourself. I've already addressed this. Their hot-dry climate populations have nasal indices that aren't adapted to hot-dry climates. Their results are biased. For cold climates they use Europeans who have been adapting to that climate for longer than 40kya. For hot-dry climates they use Bantu speakers, Australians and Khoisan. They haven't demonstrated that those populations are adapted to hot-dry climates. At least for Bantu and khoisan speakers we can be 100% sure that they aren't. The paper is skewed, and the fact that you don't care and keep citing it shows that you're a fraud. Also, Bantu speakers generally don't even live in arid climates. The (conclusions reached by the) paper are a fail, just like you are.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the frustrated lyinass twit: Stupid piece of sh!t you played yourself pointing out that North Indians have straighter hair than South Indians. That only proves my point that the colder the straighter.
LOL No you're point is NOT proven! Because the indigenous people of the tropics with loose hair do NOT have straight hair but wavy hair. Cold may have something to do with hair that is very straight, but NOT all loose hair in general as shown with folks in the tropics. Therefore your example is a non-sequitor.
quote:Also, piece of sh!t, OOA migration routes are highly theoretical and generalized. As I explained to your dumb ass earlier there is nothing that says all people who would eventually wind up in Oceania had to always keep to the strictest southern route. Many probably settled in certain areas for thousands of years before moving again and some of these areas could easily have been North of the strictest southern coastal route. They didn't have maps and say to themselves "we need to get to Australia let's take the most efficient route" you thick dimwit.
LMAO When your dumbass first speculated about OOAs evolving loose hair in the cold environment of northern Iran/Afghanistan, I cited actual evidence both genetically and geologically why that is not so! Genetically there are no lineages from that area that match with the first OOA only in southern India, and geologically such northern areas at that time was impenetrable desert. So now your comeback is that it is highly theoretical?! Hahahaha! You are pathetic.
quote:There is more than one reasonable theory as to the evolution of straight hair in Northern climates. The idea that straight hair is an adaptation to dryness doesn't even have an explanation, it's just something you made up. Obviously wavy and curly types of hair are a middle points between tightly coiled kinky afro hair and bone straight hair.
Again, the hair that I am referring to is WAVY hair. That is hair straighter than curly but not as straight as typical Asian hair.
quote:That is why the location of people with "bone straight hair" extreme will give the clearest indication of the relation to climate assuming that they have been there for the thousands of years it takes for it to occur. Look at your own bone straight hair and mediate on your boneheadedness
So what about those folks who don't live in cold environments but in the tropics and have wavy hair like some Africans and aboriginal south Indians and Southeast Asians? What do northern Asians with 'bone straight' hair have to do with the hair forms of older populations to the hotter south?
As you can see the Indian man's hair grows in waves and not jet straight like typical east Asians.
quote: Chemical and Physical Behavior of Human Hair By Clarence R. Robbins 2012, pub: Springer
And again, where in your source does it address the type of hair that we are discussing in this forum? Your source talks about thick straight hair of typical (East) Asians and the less eliptical wavy hair of Europeans, but where is the wavy hair of tropical peoples including those in Africa?? Again, for the 3rd time, why not cite a source on what we are actually talking about, stupid twit! Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: 1) Male pattern baldness is passed on genetically. It is not a disorder. Just as the ancestors of humans lost their tails millions of years ago on account of its non-adaptability so too the genes for male pattern baldness would have disappeared by now because baldness affords no advantage in terms of scalp protection according to the theories being mounted on the matter.
Male pattern baldness IS a genetic disorder. As I stated, the condition is the result of the inefficient metabolism of testosterone. The disorder is obviously genetic because some males are more predisposed than others, and this predisposition varies from population to population as well.
There are many articles on the issue of male balding. Here's one for example:
If you yourself are suffering from this condition, then I'm sorry. There are many genetic disorders that are non-adaptive or even maladaptive. Albinism for example still occurs in Africa even though such a condition is fatal in the tropical sun! Again, what does male pattern balding have to do with the topic in discussion??
quote:The arguments proposed are that hair form are causally linked to environmental and climatic conditions. I argue against that. The simple reason is that science has not been able to establish direct empirical links to these causalities.
The Kalahari and Namib deserts were on the path towards desertification some 1.2 million years ago. By 200,000 years ago the land was already parched and supported specific desert flora and fauna. The point is that the San have been living in desert and desert-like conditions ever since they set foot in Southern Africa. And that is more than 27,000 years ago based on their Cave art.
Again, the point is that we do not have scientific proof that humid tropical climates produce tightly curled hair and that dry desertic conditions produce straight hair. Claims in this direction are purely speculative.
This reminds of the Lyn-Rushton hypothesis that colder climates select for higher intelligence that warm/hot climates based purely on repported IQ scores for African, Europeans, and Asians.
My first point is simply saying that when you have population isolates--the world norm until quite recently--reproductive patterns are limited to just that isolate space. As a result particular traits become modal for particular groups.
I believe Swenet already gave you an answer to the alleged ancestry of the San and their habitation in southern Africa. I also suggest you look at the whole area of southern Africa altogether.
PLEISTOCENE CLIMATES IN EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA RICHARD FOSTER FLINT Abstract: Pleistocene climates in the southern half of Africa are indicated by evidence of lakes in regions now dry, ancient soils for whose development the climate is now too dry or too wet, inactive wind-blown sand now covered by vegetation, and signs of former glaciation. Such features indicate climates different from those now prevailing. In addition, anomalies in the distribution of living organisms seem to support the assumption of climatic change.
Most of the evidence indicates change in annual amount or seasonal distribution of rainfall, but some suggests former temperatures lower, possibly by as much as 5°C., than those of today. Few of the features discussed are well fixed stratigraphically, but most of them are probably late Pleistocene.
The atmospheric-circulation pattern shows that annual amount and seasonal distribution of rainfall differ markedly in various regions in the subcontinent. The current literature contains a start toward a reconstruction of former patterns which are compatible with the geologic and biogeographic evidence, based on analogies with modern anomalies.
Although probable, the theory that pluvial climates in Africa were contemporaneous with glacial climates in Europe remains unsupported by geologic evidence, mainly because data are very few.Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Idiotic, this fool is trying to make the case that wavy hair is some kind of unique thing Tightly coiled hair and very straight hair are obviously extremes with wavy and curly in-between. As I have demonstrated many times he can't deal with examples that are out of his narrow parameter. Now he's acting like only wavy hair is an adaptation to dryness in order to avoid straight hair which is obviously one stage further away from afro type hair than wavy and curly. Solving why people have straight hair solves why people have hair that is only somewhat straight i.e. wavy This kid is too dumb to deal with.
No explanation given why wavy or straight hair would be an adaptation to a dry climate. Why am I even arguing a case has not even been made?
Posts: 43094 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Leptorrhine noses are not adaptations to dry heat, only dry cold.
So why then do North-East Asians, having evolved--per the orthodox theory--in the dry cold of North East Asia have, as the colloquial talk puts it, "flat noses"?
In fact it was/is the practice for some Japanese to surgically insert artificial plastic nose bridges into their noses so that they get "that Western look". They do the same with their eyes too.
In fact, the generic nasal structure of the North East Asian approximates that commonly seen in Africa.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Male pattern baldness IS a genetic disorder. As I stated, the condition is the result of the inefficient metabolism of testosterone. The disorder is obviously genetic because some males are more predisposed than others, and this predisposition varies from population to population as well.
One might as well argue that since humans have lost most of their body hair in evolutionary time that therefore humans are suffering from some genetic disorder.
Some males are unable to grow beards or much facial hair. Is that a genetic disorder?
The reason I bring up "male pattern baldness" is because humans could just as easily have evolved in such a way that their heads and faces be completely hairless. In other words there is no empirically discernible advantage to having any hair on the cranium at all. Thus straight hair, wavy hair, curly hair, kinky hair bear no relationship to environment and climate. The San of South Africa could just as easily have developed North East Asian type hair. They already have the epicanthic eye fold.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that were true cold humid would be high NI. It isn't.
No, if it the selective pressure would have been temperature, then there wouldn't be a difference between hot-dry and hot-humid climates. This is contradicted by your own paper (see fig 5). Just throw yourself away, your own sources debunk you, useless wanker.
quote:The 2011 paper also argues temperature affects nasal size more than vapor pressure level:
You're merely repeating yourself. I've already addressed this. Their hot-dry climate populations have nasal indices that aren't adapted to hot-dry climates. Their results are biased. For cold climates they use Europeans who have been adapting to that climate for longer than 40kya. For hot-dry climates they use Bantu speakers, Australians and Khoisan. They haven't demonstrated that those populations are adapted to hot-dry climates. At least for Bantu and khoisan speakers we can be 100% sure that they aren't. The paper is skewed, and the fact that you don't care and keep citing it shows that you're a fraud. Also, Bantu speakers generally don't even live in arid climates. The (conclusions reached by the) paper are a fail, just like you are.
All those sources debunk you, not me. Its apparent you don't even have access to them.
Thomson and Buxton (1923) and Davies (1932) showed thinnest noses appear in dry cold.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Caucasoid radiated from drier cold hence they have thinner noses.
.
And what's all this prevaricating BS about? You don't have an answer so I regaled with some spam. Thanks for the dinner. LOL.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that were true cold humid would be high NI. It isn't.
No, if it the selective pressure would have been temperature, then there wouldn't be a difference between hot-dry and hot-humid climates. This is contradicted by your own paper (see fig 5). Just throw yourself away, your own sources debunk you, useless wanker.
quote:The 2011 paper also argues temperature affects nasal size more than vapor pressure level:
You're merely repeating yourself. I've already addressed this. Their hot-dry climate populations have nasal indices that aren't adapted to hot-dry climates. Their results are biased. For cold climates they use Europeans who have been adapting to that climate for longer than 40kya. For hot-dry climates they use Bantu speakers, Australians and Khoisan. They haven't demonstrated that those populations are adapted to hot-dry climates. At least for Bantu and khoisan speakers we can be 100% sure that they aren't. The paper is skewed, and the fact that you don't care and keep citing it shows that you're a fraud. Also, Bantu speakers generally don't even live in arid climates. The (conclusions reached by the) paper are a fail, just like you are.
All those sources debunk you, not me. Its apparent you don't even have access to them.
Thomson and Buxton (1923) and Davies (1932) showed thinnest noses appear in dry cold.
You're shifting the goal post **AGAIN**. I never said that the narrowest noses occur in tropical arid regions, although I wouldn't be surprised if many in those regions are more leptorrhine than many Europeans. Like I said, you're a total phuckup. Africans in hot-dry regions can and do show nasal indices in Mesorrhine and Leptorrhine range (which you're admitting right now). Another hard pill for your dumbass to swallow are Hausa in Northern Nigeria. Not so many Caucasoids there to invoke, are there? LMAO.
quote:Table 1 indicates the means and the standard deviations for the two sexes together with the P- values. The mean nasal index for the Hausa males is 70.7 ± 11.3 which is higher than found in the females which was 67.2 ± 8.3 and the P-value is < 0.05. This indicates statistically significant difference between the sexes. Table 2 indicates also the means, the standard deviations as well as the standard error for the two sexes.
quote:If that were true cold humid would be high NI. It isn't.
No, if it the selective pressure would have been temperature, then there wouldn't be a difference between hot-dry and hot-humid climates. This is contradicted by your own paper (see fig 5). Just throw yourself away, your own sources debunk you, useless wanker.
quote:The 2011 paper also argues temperature affects nasal size more than vapor pressure level:
You're merely repeating yourself. I've already addressed this. Their hot-dry climate populations have nasal indices that aren't adapted to hot-dry climates. Their results are biased. For cold climates they use Europeans who have been adapting to that climate for longer than 40kya. For hot-dry climates they use Bantu speakers, Australians and Khoisan. They haven't demonstrated that those populations are adapted to hot-dry climates. At least for Bantu and khoisan speakers we can be 100% sure that they aren't. The paper is skewed, and the fact that you don't care and keep citing it shows that you're a fraud. Also, Bantu speakers generally don't even live in arid climates. The (conclusions reached by the) paper are a fail, just like you are.
All those sources debunk you, not me. Its apparent you don't even have access to them.
Thomson and Buxton (1923) and Davies (1932) showed thinnest noses appear in dry cold.
You're shifting the goal post **AGAIN**. I never said that the narrowest noses occur in tropical arid regions, although I wouldn't be surprised if many in those regions are more leptorrhine than many Europeans. Like I said, you're a total phuckup. Africans in hot-dry regions can and do show nasal indices in Mesorrhine and Leptorrhine range (which you're admitting right now). Another hard pill for your dumbass to swallow are Hausa in Northern Nigeria. Not so many Caucasoids there to invoke, are there? LMAO.
quote:Table 1 indicates the means and the standard deviations for the two sexes together with the P- values. The mean nasal index for the Hausa males is 70.7 ± 11.3 which is higher than found in the females which was 67.2 ± 8.3 and the P-value is < 0.05. This indicates statistically significant difference between the sexes. Table 2 indicates also the means, the standard deviations as well as the standard error for the two sexes.
--Anas, 2010
The Hausa are an ethnic group, not a racial type. You can generate any nasal index average based on limited sampling. Hiernaux, 1975, p. 164 lists the Hausa mean as 85. You still don't understand what typology is, and think it is populations. lol.
posted
^YOU don't get the point. If nose form co-varies with humidity (which you've just admitted in your previous post) typology is dead. LMAO. You're a hypocritical nutjob. On the one had you claim to subscribe to typology, and on the other hand, you classify dolichocephalic crania as Mongoloid. You're literally retarded beyond fixing.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn equal contributor,
Conclusion
Our genome-wide dense genotyping data from seven North African populations allow us to address outstanding questions regarding the origin and migration history of North Africa. We propose that present-day ancestry in North Africa is the result of at least three distinct episodes: ancient “back-to-Africa” gene flow prior to the Holocene, more recent gene flow from the Near East resulting in a longitudinal gradient, and limited but very recent migrations from sub-Saharan Africa.
^^^straight hair in North Africa
Posts: 43094 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Dufus, those AMHs are postulated to have originated in the Levant. Are you saying that AMHs in the Delta would retain nappy hair, while AMHs in the Levant would sport wavy-straight hair? What are the evolutionary mechanisms that would allow for such a bizarre contrast?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Dufus, those AMHs are postulated to have originated in the Levant. Are you saying that AMHs in the Delta would retain nappy hair, while AMHs in the Levant would sport wavy-straight hair? What are the evolutionary mechanisms that would allow for such a bizarre contrast?
You can place it all in Africa and ask the same question why the bizarre contrast in one region of Africa compared to another. In other words fail.
The Middle east is known for the transitional curly hair. There is also straight hair and wavy straight hair. I notice who the term "straight" is being slickly attempted to be deleted. Wavy hair is a form of straight hair, the straight hair, Curly hair is more in the middle. Djehutie things that Indian man has wavy ahir. he doesn't. It's just not as limp as so called "bone straight" East Asian hair. Wavy hair is when the outgrowth strands have several S curves in them, waves. Straight hair in the Levant comes from people a littel bit highy, Turkey and Northern Iran region who came back down South
^^^^ Common sense:
the Sahara/Sahel is the largest arid region in the world. How come straight hair is much less common ther than Europe?Russia/East Asia ?
this is straight hair although not necessarily "bone straight"
^^^ both are compatible with cold environments. If grown long it can keep the neck and shoulders warm. It also processes vitamin D, something that has been noted in animal fur and bird feathers. And is not a liability in hot dray environments. people who have these types of hair who went in South Asia were first in relatively more Northern regions
Posts: 43094 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You can place it all in Africa and ask the same question why the bizarre contrast in one region of Africa compared to another. In other words fail.
You cannot demonstrate that the extant kinky haired populations that live in the Northern or Southern third of the continent have lived there as long as the ancestors of the Egypto-Nubians have lived at that lattitude (From Nazlet Khater, all the way to Wadi Kubbaniya and Wadi Halfa). This Upper Palaeolithic presence is also indicated by various haplogroups (in particular, mtDNA L3k which expanded into that region 30-40kya). And that's not even counting the pre-L3 lineages that didn't survive in modern Northern Africans (e.g., Skhull and Qafzeh). Therefore, it is YOUR argument that fails.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Did you not read my response?! Male pattern baldness is the result of a disorder among some individual males in metabolizing their testosterone as they age. It has has NOTHING to do with adaptation or hair form! Male pattern baldness depends on the individual. Some males are more predisposed than others, yet certain hair types fall out more easily than others. If your hypothesis holds true, then there wouldn't be any reason for males to have hair at all! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic