I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

My work indicates that frizzy hair was an inland derived trait
resulting from natural selection of lice-carried diseases (typhus,
etc.) which bonded their eggs to straight and wavy hair follicles, but
not to frizzy follicles due to the high radial curvature of the
follicles (Sub-Saharan
African Blacks have extremely little head lice compared to all other
groups
(statement based on Black American head lice study)).

I think the modern SSA populations were derived from tan to dark
skinned
ancestors living on coasts, with straight to wavy hair, who slowly
eventually
moved inland to freshwater forest/savanna edges via rivers (in dug-outs
crafted with Hand-axes) developing curly and then frizzy hair (both
head
hair and body hair) due to natural selection by tropical rainforest
(freshwater)
conditions including lice and other pathogens. Body lice can transmit
typhus.

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics). http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

DD

"nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1169855600.913123.7850@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

My work indicates that frizzy hair was an inland derived trait
resulting from natural selection of lice-carried diseases (typhus,
etc.) which bonded their eggs to straight and wavy hair follicles, but
not to frizzy follicles due to the high radial curvature of the
follicles (Sub-Saharan
African Blacks have extremely little head lice compared to all other
groups
(statement based on Black American head lice study)).

I am not sure this was ever a study, per se, but it is commonly known... the
lice and/or nits just don't seem to have a easy time of it on African
American heads.
Also, I don't think that head lice (as they currently exist in the
American population) carry any disease, much less a deadly disease. The
MOSQUITO is much deadlier... and AFAIK... is THE deadliest wild animal for
humans.

for what it's worth, in my opinion, the frizzy hair was probably the
original condition for our species and later evolved into other forms, and
that evolution occured recently, like in the last 200kya. (although it is
probably incorrect of me to say "evolved" for the so-called "racial"
differences.) My comment implies that the LCA with chimps had some sort of
frizzy hair and that it didn't change much over the following 7 million
years... a seeming contradiction. Frankly, I haven't resolved that except
by thinking that the environment in Africa during those 7 million years
didn't offer any pressure to change the hair. --chap

I think the modern SSA populations were derived from tan to dark
skinned
ancestors living on coasts, with straight to wavy hair, who slowly
eventually
moved inland to freshwater forest/savanna edges via rivers (in dug-outs
crafted with Hand-axes) developing curly and then frizzy hair (both
head
hair and body hair) due to natural selection by tropical rainforest
(freshwater)
conditions including lice and other pathogens. Body lice can transmit
typhus.

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

DD

On Jan 29, 5:36 pm, "Chapstick" <chapst...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1169855600.913123.7850@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

My work indicates that frizzy hair was an inland derived trait
resulting from natural selection of lice-carried diseases (typhus,
etc.) which bonded their eggs to straight and wavy hair follicles, but
not to frizzy follicles due to the high radial curvature of the
follicles (Sub-Saharan
African Blacks have extremely little head lice compared to all other
groups
(statement based on Black American head lice study)).

I am not sure this was ever a study, per se, but it is commonly known...
the
lice and/or nits just don't seem to have a easy time of it on African
American heads.
Also, I don't think that head lice (as they currently exist in the
American population) carry any disease, much less a deadly disease. The
MOSQUITO is much deadlier... and AFAIK... is THE deadliest wild animal
for
humans.

Yes there was a study. AFAIK, head lice don't carry pathogens
dangerous to humans. Lice, like mosquitoes, consume blood, so there is
a cost even without pathogenic microbes. But body lice carry 3 types
of pathogens IIRC, bacteria, fungus and virus, with 3 serious diseases
including Typhus. I don't know the traditional geographic ranges of
these diseases. If head hair is frizzy (super curly), then body hair
is also frizzy, and vice versa, excluding some facial hair (eyelashes)
and axillary hair (armpits).

Frizzy body hair was selected for regions where typhus etc. were
prevalent, so head hair also became frizzy, since it was part of the
body hair gene complex. Ape hair is not frizzy and is more like the
thick follicles of South and East Asians. People diving in saltwater
daily AFAIK don't have high prevalence of body lice or typhus
(uncertain).

Mosquito-borne pathogens (malaria, dengue...) may be relatively new
human parasites, in the last 10,000-100,000 years. Human disease
outbreaks may largely be the result of agriculture (rice paddies,
canals).

They may have favored monkeys and apes, and only switched to human
hosts when humans re-entered the tropical forests, perhaps due to the
use of dug-out canoes up rivers. Humans may have been on tropical
marine reefs, atolls, islands far from mosquito pathogens. Tahiti had
no mosquitoes, while Papua had malarial mosquitoes. Some Polynesians
have Papuan admixture, with anti-malarial blood, even though there
were no mosquitoes there in eastern Polynesia until later humans
brought them.

for what it's worth, in my opinion, the frizzy hair was probably the
original condition for our species and later evolved into other forms,
and
that evolution occured recently, like in the last 200kya. (although it
is
probably incorrect of me to say "evolved" for the so-called "racial"
differences.) My comment implies that the LCA with chimps had some sort
of
frizzy hair and that it didn't change much over the following 7 million
years... a seeming contradiction. Frankly, I haven't resolved that
except
by thinking that the environment in Africa during those 7 million years
didn't offer any pressure to change the hair. --chap

Curly hair is found in temperate water dogs eg. poodle (duck dog) and
sheep (some sheep in Scotland eat only seaweed).

All apes have straight hair, not frizzy hair AFAIK.

DD


I think the modern SSA populations were derived from tan to dark
skinned
ancestors living on coasts, with straight to wavy hair, who slowly
eventually
moved inland to freshwater forest/savanna edges via rivers (in dug-outs
crafted with Hand-axes) developing curly and then frizzy hair (both
head
hair and body hair) due to natural selection by tropical rainforest
(freshwater)
conditions including lice and other pathogens. Body lice can transmit
typhus.

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

DD

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

On Jan 27, 10:53 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

...



The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Argumentum ad aquaticus. Automatic assumption of aquatic evolutionary
pressures, sans any testing of the hypothesis as to whether such
behaviours would/could have exerted an evolutionary pressure on the
"coastal people". There is no evidence presented that swimming
(ability, frequency, risk/reward) impacted on survival, nor less any
evidence that hydrodynamics impacted on swimming ability to any
significant degree.



Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

Evidence that time spent immersed in seawater on a daily basis is
proportionately reduced in modern times?

Explanation as to why this evidence would be more plausible than fact
that humans have taken to living together in higher concentrations
that historically in modern times?

Anyone noticed how since traffic has been slow on SAP recently, the
wet-apers are starting to slink back in? First DD & Chapstick, Marco's
trojan horses, now increasingly the Belgian donkey himself...

Ross Macfarlane

On Jan 31, 10:24 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:



On Jan 27, 10:53 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

...

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Argumentum ad aquaticus. Automatic assumption of aquatic evolutionary
pressures, sans any testing of the hypothesis as to whether such
behaviours would/could have exerted an evolutionary pressure on the
"coastal people". There is no evidence presented that swimming
(ability, frequency, risk/reward) impacted on survival, nor less any
evidence that hydrodynamics impacted on swimming ability to any
significant degree.

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

Evidence that time spent immersed in seawater on a daily basis is
proportionately reduced in modern times?

Explanation as to why this evidence would be more plausible than fact
that humans have taken to living together in higher concentrations
that historically in modern times?

Anyone noticed how since traffic has been slow on SAP recently, the
wet-apers are starting to slink back in? First DD & Chapstick, Marco's
trojan horses, now increasingly the Belgian donkey himself...

Ross Macfarlane

Hey Mac, how dose dancing penguins?

On Feb 1, 11:46 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Jan 31, 10:24 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

On Jan 27, 10:53 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

...

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Argumentum ad aquaticus. Automatic assumption of aquatic evolutionary
pressures, sans any testing of the hypothesis as to whether such
behaviours would/could have exerted an evolutionary pressure on the
"coastal people". There is no evidence presented that swimming
(ability, frequency, risk/reward) impacted on survival, nor less any
evidence that hydrodynamics impacted on swimming ability to any
significant degree.

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

Evidence that time spent immersed in seawater on a daily basis is
proportionately reduced in modern times?

Explanation as to why this evidence would be more plausible than fact
that humans have taken to living together in higher concentrations
that historically in modern times?

Anyone noticed how since traffic has been slow on SAP recently, the
wet-apers are starting to slink back in? First DD & Chapstick, Marco's
trojan horses, now increasingly the Belgian donkey himself...

Ross Macfarlane

Hey Mac, how dose dancing penguins? ;)

Smarter than the average neandertal!!!

Evidence that time spent immersed in seawater on a daily basis is
proportionately reduced in modern times?

Our oceans are becoming empty of fish due to massive overharvesting by
modern methods. The fisherman do not enter the seawater, due to
technology (boats, nets). All other species which harvest seafood must
contend with water density, and so most are selected for
hydrodynamics, modern humans are not.

Explanation as to why this evidence would be more plausible than fact
that humans have taken to living together in higher concentrations
that historically in modern times?

Most modern people live in highly concentrated communities within 50
miles of a coast. Not sure of your point here.

Anyone noticed how since traffic has been slow on SAP recently, the
wet-apers are starting to slink back in? First DD & Chapstick, Marco's
trojan horses, now increasingly the Belgian donkey himself...

Ross Macfarlane

Hey Mac, how dose dancing penguins?

Smarter than the average neandertal!!!

On Feb 2, 10:00 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Evidence that time spent immersed in seawater on a daily basis is
proportionately reduced in modern times?

Our oceans are becoming empty of fish due to massive overharvesting by
modern methods. The fisherman do not enter the seawater, due to
technology (boats, nets). All other species which harvest seafood must
contend with water density, and so most are selected for
hydrodynamics, modern humans are not.

This is what you call evidence?

...
Explanation as to why this evidence would be more plausible than fact
that humans have taken to living together in higher concentrations
that historically in modern times?

Most modern people live in highly concentrated communities within 50
miles of a coast. Not sure of your point here.

Hypothesis: increased prevalence of lice is related to people living
at higher population densities (sometimes by a factor of 1000) than in
hunter-gatherer societies.

My point is that like every good AAT loon, you automatically search
for the explanation of every human feature, real or imagined, in the
water.

Anyone noticed how since traffic has been slow on SAP recently, the
wet-apers are starting to slink back in? First DD & Chapstick, Marco's
trojan horses, now increasingly the Belgian donkey himself...

Hey Mac, how dose dancing penguins? ;)

eh?

Smarter than the average neandertal!!!

A baseless, gross slur on the average neanderthal. ANNE V GILBERT will
be wagging her cyberfinger at you Spiz...

On Jan 27, 10:53 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

...


The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Argumentum ad aquaticus. Automatic assumption of aquatic evolutionary
pressures, sans any testing of the hypothesis as to whether such
behaviours would/could have exerted an evolutionary pressure on the
"coastal people". There is no evidence presented that swimming
(ability, frequency, risk/reward) impacted on survival, nor less any
evidence that hydrodynamics impacted on swimming ability to any
significant degree.


Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

Evidence that time spent immersed in seawater on a daily basis is
proportionately reduced in modern times?

Explanation as to why this evidence would be more plausible than fact
that humans have taken to living together in higher concentrations
that historically in modern times?

Anyone noticed how since traffic has been slow on SAP recently, the
wet-apers are starting to slink back in? First DD & Chapstick, Marco's
trojan horses, now increasingly the Belgian donkey himself...

Ross Macfarlane

"nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170280440.093456.60810@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 29, 5:36 pm, "Chapstick" <chapst...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1169855600.913123.7850@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I'm hoping Paul or someone will provide a sensible response (sorry
Spiznet! ) to a
question I asked a year ago:

Paul, why do you think ancient human ancestors had frizzy hair?

My work indicates that frizzy hair was an inland derived trait
resulting from natural selection of lice-carried diseases (typhus,
etc.) which bonded their eggs to straight and wavy hair follicles, but
not to frizzy follicles due to the high radial curvature of the
follicles (Sub-Saharan
African Blacks have extremely little head lice compared to all other
groups
(statement based on Black American head lice study)).

I am not sure this was ever a study, per se, but it is commonly known...
the
lice and/or nits just don't seem to have a easy time of it on African
American heads.
Also, I don't think that head lice (as they currently exist in the
American population) carry any disease, much less a deadly disease. The
MOSQUITO is much deadlier... and AFAIK... is THE deadliest wild animal
for
humans.

Yes there was a study. AFAIK, head lice don't carry pathogens
dangerous to humans. Lice, like mosquitoes, consume blood, so there is
a cost even without pathogenic microbes. But body lice carry 3 types
of pathogens IIRC, bacteria, fungus and virus, with 3 serious diseases
including Typhus. I don't know the traditional geographic ranges of
these diseases. If head hair is frizzy (super curly), then body hair
is also frizzy, and vice versa, excluding some facial hair (eyelashes)
and axillary hair (armpits).

Frizzy body hair was selected for regions where typhus etc. were
prevalent, so head hair also became frizzy, since it was part of the
body hair gene complex. Ape hair is not frizzy and is more like the
thick follicles of South and East Asians. People diving in saltwater
daily AFAIK don't have high prevalence of body lice or typhus
(uncertain).


hi... no time to write just now... i am a sculptor, and our model is
unbelievably beautiful, so if i had a lick'a'sense would be there right
now instead of looking at the computer... so must go soon...the class has
already begun... <smile>... I do think that you are suggesting that our
LCA and/or an early ancestor had frizzy hair. Did we ever have fur?
When, in your opinion, did we lose our fur/frizzy hair? and there should
be some care given to this question, I believe, because several
hypothesis's depend on when and how and why we lost our fur/body hair
(although, to be more precise, some gene just "turned off" our hair
folicle production... lessened it..).
off to class...
--chap

Mosquito-borne pathogens (malaria, dengue...) may be relatively new
human parasites, in the last 10,000-100,000 years. Human disease
outbreaks may largely be the result of agriculture (rice paddies,
canals).

They may have favored monkeys and apes, and only switched to human
hosts when humans re-entered the tropical forests, perhaps due to the
use of dug-out canoes up rivers. Humans may have been on tropical
marine reefs, atolls, islands far from mosquito pathogens. Tahiti had
no mosquitoes, while Papua had malarial mosquitoes. Some Polynesians
have Papuan admixture, with anti-malarial blood, even though there
were no mosquitoes there in eastern Polynesia until later humans
brought them.

for what it's worth, in my opinion, the frizzy hair was probably the
original condition for our species and later evolved into other forms,
and
that evolution occured recently, like in the last 200kya. (although it
is
probably incorrect of me to say "evolved" for the so-called "racial"
differences.) My comment implies that the LCA with chimps had some sort
of
frizzy hair and that it didn't change much over the following 7 million
years... a seeming contradiction. Frankly, I haven't resolved that
except
by thinking that the environment in Africa during those 7 million years
didn't offer any pressure to change the hair. --chap

Curly hair is found in temperate water dogs eg. poodle (duck dog) and
sheep (some sheep in Scotland eat only seaweed).

All apes have straight hair, not frizzy hair AFAIK.

DD


I think the modern SSA populations were derived from tan to dark
skinned
ancestors living on coasts, with straight to wavy hair, who slowly
eventually
moved inland to freshwater forest/savanna edges via rivers (in
dug-outs
crafted with Hand-axes) developing curly and then frizzy hair (both
head
hair and body hair) due to natural selection by tropical rainforest
(freshwater)
conditions including lice and other pathogens. Body lice can transmit
typhus.

The coastal people retained straight-wavy hair due to the dual action
of sunlight
and daily saltwater submergence, where lice and their eggs (nits)
couldn't stay
attached, (straight/wavy hair being dominant in coastal populations
due
to better
hydrodynamics).http://tinyurl.com/2oq7d8

Very curly and frizzy hair are inland tropical rainforest Hs traits,
this pattern of inland
frizzy/coastal straight hair is found throughout the Indo-Pacific area
with few exceptions
(Madagascar due to recent settlement). The straight and wavy hair
found
in many
caucasians and East Asians tend to get worse lice infestations AFAIK
due to
the proportionately reduced time spent immersed in seawater on a daily
basis in
modern times.

DD

... I might be a net loon, but not a wet aper. (it
is incontrovertible that we are ALL nerds, and therefore possibly
netloonatics, on sap, since we post here.) I am your basic standard pa,
mosaic, generalist. As a generalist, it must include some contact with the
water since we are known to inhabit water now & generalist includes all
environments from some 18,000 feet up to about 120 feet under, and pole to
pole.

On Feb 4, 4:10 am, "Chapstick" <chapst...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
...

... I might be a net loon, but not a wet aper. (it
is incontrovertible that we are ALL nerds, and therefore possibly
netloonatics, on sap, since we post here.) I am your basic standard pa,
mosaic, generalist. As a generalist, it must include some contact with
the
water since we are known to inhabit water now & generalist includes all
environments from some 18,000 feet up to about 120 feet under, and pole
to
pole.

OK, I shall take you at your word on that, and withdraw my assertion
with due apology...

Ross Macfarlane

apology accepted.. thanks.. and no harm done. and sorry about the DLF ref

Humans have never been selected for hydrodynamics.