WHY ARE WESTERNERS SO HAIRY ?
Basic Instinct
>
>Why are many men not cutting the hair that come out of dark spots in
>the skin, sometimes? Is it considered bringing bad luck to cut them or
>something? Sometimes that looks rather unappealing (to my eyes)
>especially when it is in the face.
>
I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole
hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
Johnny Lou
Have you ever considered that they might in fact have not yet
completed their evolution ?
bruce thompson
> hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
> always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
> Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
It's just a by-product of nature. Why do Asian men and
women have identical figures? Our aesthetic preferences are
conditioned by what we've grown up with.
--
bruce thompson
bru...@mindspring.com
Apple Macintosh Performa: Because you shouldn't have to be a
computer to use one.
spike
are blessed with a natural defence against mosquitoes, especially in the legs.
I have personally witness a mozzie giving up while trying to attack the
legs of an indian friend.
Regards,
Spike
ann
>>Why are many men not cutting the hair that come out of dark spot in the skin?
ba...@instinct.com.mg responded:
>I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole hairs, that make you uncomforatble, may I ask why Caucasians are alway=
s so bushy all over their body like apes?? Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
My response to ba...@instinct.com.mg is that you take it too seriously. The previous question was about cultural differences and wan=
ting to understand. Whereas you are just so damn sensitive. No Caucasians are not always bushy, and no they are not less human in ev=
olution ladder. Only people who cannot tolerate cultural interest that are lower in the evolution of humankind.
ann
Janaka v Goonasekera
: Basic Instinct <ba...@instinct.com.mg> wrote:
: >er...@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Andreas Erben) wrote:
: >>Why are many men not cutting the hair that come out of dark spots in
: >>the skin, sometimes? Is it considered bringing bad luck to cut them or
: >>something? Sometimes that looks rather unappealing (to my eyes)
: >>especially when it is in the face.
: >I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole
: >hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
: >always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
: >Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
: Have you ever considered that they might in fact have not yet
: completed their evolution ?
WHY ARE YOU TRYING SO HARD TO START A RACIST FLAME WAR ?
THERE ARE ENOUGH OF THAT IN SCS AS IS !
Now to answer the previous question ;
Well , anthropologists have catagorised Human beings in to 5 major
groups - Please understand that the difference are purely superficial
All of us are equal when it comes to things that really matter the
most ; like feelings and the potential to get hurt... intelligence too..
the groups are :
Caucsoid ( Whites and Indians in here ) ,
Negroid ( Micheal Jackson is suppose to be here... but I think he's a
group on his own ... maybe we can call it plastesoid )
Mongoloid ( Chinese and Pokahontas here)
and Australoid
The Caucsoids seem to have a lot of hair... :)
I'm Indian and I don't find that to be much of a problem :)
Have a nice Day
************************
Janaka V. Goonasekera *
COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS *
NUS *
E-mail: sci40131.nus.sg*
************************
Ryan M Rafferty
: er...@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Andreas Erben) wrote:
: >
: >Why are many men not cutting the hair that come out of dark spots in
: >the skin, sometimes? Is it considered bringing bad luck to cut them or
: >something? Sometimes that looks rather unappealing (to my eyes)
: >especially when it is in the face.
: >
: I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole
: hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
: always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
: Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
Unconditionally yes.
Is mise le meas,
Riain O/ Raifiartaigh
Matthew
barbarians who drink loads of lager and spread porno movies across the
globe.
Whilst we're on the subject of gross generalisations:
Why to Chinese persist in cultural attrocities like setting up karaoke
joints all over South East Asia and going on five or more car convoys up
to Genting Highland for Chinese New Year?
Matthew
Dongxiao Yue
When a body part is no longer needed, that part will be
gradually degenerating. After a long time, the part will disappear
because it is useless.
For example, the monkeys have tails, although we may share ancesters
with monkeys, we don't have tails(only a residual of it). Because millions
of years ago, our ancesters learnt to walk on the ground, they no longer
need the tail to keep balance, while the monkeys are still climbing trees,
and the tail is absoulutely neccessary.
Another example, the wild animals have big, strong and protruded jaws,
because they need them to chew raw meat and bone, tear flesh, chew uncooked
vegetables... But humans have much smaller mouth and jaw, because they
learnt to use tools to cut food into smaller pieces and
use fire to cook stuff and make them much easy to eat.
The Asians even have flat face, because they have discovered agriculture for
at least 10 thousand years, they don't need a big jaw to tear animal flesh.
For the body hair, the explanation is the following:
When humans discovered dressing themselves, the body hair is no longer needed
to keep the body temperature. So gradually, the body hair disappears.
But the hair on the head is still needed, because the head is always
exposed, and it is vital to keep the brain temperature so the human can
use his main weapon--intelligence. I guess if people always wear a hat, they
will be all bald one day--after say 10000 years.
Now, the whites have more hair, there could be a number of reasons:
1) The whites live in colder place, and their clothing was not good enough
for insulation.
2) The whites discovered dressing later.
3) Even though the whites discovered dressing at about the same time as
Asians, they were used to exposing their bodies, so the hair is still
needed.
Can someone discuss and narrow the selection from the above possibilities?
Or suggest alternative explanations?
Johnny Lou <Jl...@singnet.com.sg> writes:
>Basic Instinct <ba...@instinct.com.mg> wrote:
>>er...@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Andreas Erben) wrote:
>>>Why are many men not cutting the hair that come out of dark spots in
>>>the skin, sometimes? Is it considered bringing bad luck to cut them or
>>>something? Sometimes that looks rather unappealing (to my eyes)
>>>especially when it is in the face.
>>I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole
>>hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
>>always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
>>Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
>Have you ever considered that they might in fact have not yet
>completed their evolution ?
No Man's An Island
: OK, try to answer your question:
...
: Now, the whites have more hair, there could be a number of reasons:
: 1) The whites live in colder place, and their clothing was not good enough
: for insulation.
: 2) The whites discovered dressing later.
: 3) Even though the whites discovered dressing at about the same time as
: Asians, they were used to exposing their bodies, so the hair is still
: needed.
: Can someone discuss and narrow the selection from the above possibilities?
: Or suggest alternative explanations?
Very interesting observation indeed, Mr Yue, but I just cannot agree with
your first point about white living in the colder regions and hence, more
hair. Chinese and Japs also live in those areas, and so do eskimos. But
they are all less hairy. Self contradiction came when you said white are
used to exposing their body. How could they if they are living in colder
places?
I still think the earlier proposition that whites are lower in the
evolutionary ladder still holds. Not to offence, I am specifically
referring to physical evolution and not behavioral or mental or emotional
development.
bruce thompson
> your first point about white living in the colder regions and hence, more
> hair. Chinese and Japs also live in those areas, and so do eskimos. But
> they are all less hairy.
>
> evolutionary ladder still holds. Not to offence, I am specifically
> referring to physical evolution and not behavioral or mental or emotional
> development.
There is nothing more or less *advanced* about the presence of human
body hair. It has no benefit nor detriment, so evolution does not need
to select for or against it. In the same way, epicanthric folds around
the eyes, or the color of the eyes, have no advantage or disadvantage,
so there is plenty of room for variation. FYI, until fairly recently in
the West, body hair was thought to be a mark of manliness, and
hairlessness a sign of effeminancy. It wasn't true, of course--just the
prevailing attitude.
--
bruce thompson *So long as nothing happens, nothing will.
bru...@mindspring.com
*The great consolation in life is to say
precisely what one thinks.
--Voltaire
Edwin TAM
pimps abr [E Provisional-legco Intimate Mainland-china Purblind Supporter]
1 a group of men who solicits for a
prostitute^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrovisional Legco, lives off her earnings, and
often lives with her <after dark, the pimps appeared on the streets seeking
client for his legco>.
--
Edwin
#ifdef 1
Everything I expressed here has nothing to do with my Company, the Service
Provider, or any Government, Nation. They might not necessary agree with me
but I don't gove a damn, 'cause this is my rights.
#endif
"Free speech on the Net, and human rights, democracy is not what the Chinese
government think is - she is just a brain damaged piece of shi#y^5C@*Tg
NO CARRIER
Alexander Casti
>I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole
>hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
>always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
>Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
Let me guess...you went bald at eighteen, right? You must be
the most highly evolved creature on the planet, cueball!
Miss Pamela Lim
<bru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Very interesting observation indeed, Mr Yue, but I just cannot agree with
> > your first point about white living in the colder regions and hence, more
> > hair. Chinese and Japs also live in those areas, and so do eskimos. But
> > they are all less hairy.
> >
> > I still think the earlier proposition that whites are lower in the
> > evolutionary ladder still holds.
> There is nothing more or less *advanced* about the presence of human
> body hair. It has no benefit nor detriment, so evolution does not need
> to select for or against it.
Maybe it's just selection that occurs within a population. Maybe from ages
ago, hairy pple were considered sexy by whites whereas asians tend to go
for the "smooth" look. So all the "good-looking" pple, ie, hairy or not,
depending on your culture, tend to choose one another and mate passing
their hairy or non-hairy genes to their off-spring and after a few
generations, the genes that are considered undesirable will be
"filtered"out, hence there being hairier whites and "smooth" asians.
What do you guys think of this theory?
Pamela
--
Miss Pamela Lim, Pamel...@cs.uwa.edu.au, First Year Student
Zillion
>Maybe it's just selection that occurs within a population. Maybe from ages
>ago, hairy pple were considered sexy by whites whereas asians tend to go
>for the "smooth" look. So all the "good-looking" pple, ie, hairy or not,
>depending on your culture, tend to choose one another and mate passing
>their hairy or non-hairy genes to their off-spring and after a few
>generations, the genes that are considered undesirable will be
>"filtered"out, hence there being hairier whites and "smooth" asians.
>What do you guys think of this theory?
I think it's rubbish :)
Ugly people have kids too, you know?
bye.
W. T. Ho
writes
>
> For the body hair, the explanation is the following:
> When humans discovered dressing themselves, the body hair is no longer needed
> to keep the body temperature. So gradually, the body hair disappears.
> But the hair on the head is still needed, because the head is always
> exposed, and it is vital to keep the brain temperature so the human can
> use his main weapon--intelligence. I guess if people always wear a hat, they
> will be all bald one day--after say 10000 years.
>
vulnerable in a human body. Natural selection can only explain so much -
it took 2 million years to reach our present state of 'hairiness' - who
knows what idiosyncrasities can account for the patches of fluff that
now remain. Since the body is COVERED in small follicles its all
relative anyway.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
W. T. Ho -=w...@demon.net=- -=w...@vorpal.demon.co.uk=-
-=w...@frontline7.demon.co.uk=-
These opinions are my own and not of Demon Internet Ltd. So there.
keyBoArD cowBOY
>Maybe it's just selection that occurs within a population. Maybe from ages
>ago, hairy pple were considered sexy by whites whereas asians tend to go
>for the "smooth" look. So all the "good-looking" pple, ie, hairy or not,
>depending on your culture, tend to choose one another and mate passing
>their hairy or non-hairy genes to their off-spring and after a few
>generations, the genes that are considered undesirable will be
>"filtered"out, hence there being hairier whites and "smooth" asians.
>What do you guys think of this theory?
I think you ought to stop drinking.
--
keyBoArD cowBOY
*******************************************************
"Why do we remember the past, but not the future?"
S. W. Hawking
*******************************************************
F. Xia
> OK, try to answer your question:
Not a good effort, IMO.
> When a body part is no longer needed, that part will be
> gradually degenerating. After a long time, the part will disappear
> because it is useless.
>
> For example, the monkeys have tails, although we may share ancesters
> with monkeys, we don't have tails(only a residual of it). Because millions
> of years ago, our ancesters learnt to walk on the ground, they no longer
> need the tail to keep balance, while the monkeys are still climbing trees,
> and the tail is absoulutely neccessary.
This is an oversimplification but okay if
one does not object in a fundamental way
to the theory that humans and monkeys
share ancestors. Many people, possibly a
majority of the human beings on earth, do.
> Another example, the wild animals have big, strong and protruded jaws,
> because they need them to chew raw meat and bone, tear flesh, chew uncooked
> vegetables... But humans have much smaller mouth and jaw, because they
> learnt to use tools to cut food into smaller pieces and
> use fire to cook stuff and make them much easy to eat.
This part is plausible.
> The Asians even have flat face, because they have discovered agriculture for
> at least 10 thousand years, they don't need a big jaw to tear animal flesh.
This is complete baloney. Considering your
track record. I smell racism behind this
statement. One vital *disadvantage* of
having a shorter and shorter jaw: humans
almost in general have trouble with their
"wisdom teeth". If we are still living in
the wild and competing with other animals
in the traditional fashion this alone may
cause big troubles for us. So if the
wisdom teeth has been causing pains and
trouble in eating (a vital activity) in
millions of individuals for millions of
years, why did we not just keep the longer
jaw? It's not as though if you do not need
it, you should get rid of it, especially
when the process of getting rid of it is
continuously painful for generations and
generations. Finally, a flat face does not
a shorter jaw equal. People can have
prominent noses, dramatic eyes and eye
brows and still have short jaws.
> For the body hair, the explanation is the following:
> When humans discovered dressing themselves, the body hair is no longer needed
> to keep the body temperature. So gradually, the body hair disappears.
> But the hair on the head is still needed, because the head is always
> exposed, and it is vital to keep the brain temperature so the human can
> use his main weapon--intelligence. I guess if people always wear a hat, they
> will be all bald one day--after say 10000 years.
There are many theories about the lacking
of body hair in humans as compared to most
other mamals. If I want to disbute your
assertion about clothing, I do not need to
look further away from mamalian species
living in the tropics exclusively which
have extensive body hair. Now why did not
these evolve into hairless abominations a
la humans?
> Now, the whites have more hair, there could be a number of reasons:
> 1) The whites live in colder place, and their clothing was not good enough
> for insulation.
This is not consistent with your
speculation above. The difference between
"whites" and "non-whites" in body hair
quantity is exceedingly small and makes
zero difference where keeping warm is
concerned (the hairiest human individual
dies of hypothermia at about the same
time as the least hairy one in a
hypothetical experiment, IMO).
> 2) The whites discovered dressing later.
And the people with least body hair --
Africans -- discovered clothing the
earliest? There is one vital trouble with
this speculation: the idea of clothing
would then have to have been passed first
to people in the Middle East ("whites")
and then to the Far East. So we should
have more body hair than "whites".
> 3) Even though the whites discovered dressing at about the same time as
> Asians, they were used to exposing their bodies, so the hair is still
> needed.
Needed for what? Even if you could prove
that "they" were used to exposing their
bodies?
> Can someone discuss and narrow the selection from the above possibilities?
> Or suggest alternative explanations?
Is there any reason for this outside of a
racist agenda? There are hundreds, if not
thousands of scientific papers on the
issue, why promote an amateur discussion
in culture groups?
Would like to see your discussion in why
the average "Asian" nose is nearer in
size to those of monkeys than the average
"white" one. Probably because the "whites"
discovered eyeglasses first?
Regards, Fei
Chew Kim Swee Andrew
: Johnny Lou (Jl...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: : Basic Instinct <ba...@instinct.com.mg> wrote:
: : >er...@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Andreas Erben) wrote:
: : >>Why are many men not cutting the hair that come out of dark spots in
: : >>the skin, sometimes? Is it considered bringing bad luck to cut them or
: : >>something? Sometimes that looks rather unappealing (to my eyes)
: : >>especially when it is in the face.
: : >I have a question too. Since you are asking about Asian mole
: : >hairs that make you unconfortable, may I ask why Caucasians are
: : >always so bushy all over their body like apes ??
: : >Are they more animalistic and less human in the evolution ladder?
: : Have you ever considered that they might in fact have not yet
: : completed their evolution ?
: WHY ARE YOU TRYING SO HARD TO START A RACIST FLAME WAR ?
: THERE ARE ENOUGH OF THAT IN SCS AS IS !
: Now to answer the previous question ;
: Well , anthropologists have catagorised Human beings in to 5 major
: groups - Please understand that the difference are purely superficial
: All of us are equal when it comes to things that really matter the
: most ; like feelings and the potential to get hurt... intelligence too..
: the groups are :
: Caucsoid ( Whites and Indians in here ) ,
Caucasoid - Whites and Indo-Aryans...not Dravidians.
: Negroid ( Micheal Jackson is suppose to be here... but I think he's a
: group on his own ... maybe we can call it plastesoid )
: Mongoloid ( Chinese and Pokahontas here)
: and Australoid
: The Caucsoids seem to have a lot of hair... :)
: I'm Indian and I don't find that to be much of a problem :)
: Have a nice Day
: ************************
: Janaka V. Goonasekera *
: COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS *
: NUS *
: E-mail: sci40131.nus.sg*
: ************************
--
@@-----------------------@---------------------------------@@
Andrew Chew | Do not be overrighteous @
ckim...@starnet.gov.sg | neither be overwise -
Fax:(65)-470-3582/614 | why destroy yourself?
| Eccle 7:16(NIV)
@@-----------------------@---------------------------------@@
Hr.Hoenigsberg
> gradually degenerating. After a long time, the part will disappear
> because it is useless.
>
> For example, the monkeys have tails, although we may share ancesters
> with monkeys, we don't have tails(only a residual of it). Because millions
> of years ago, our ancesters learnt to walk on the ground, they no longer
> need the tail to keep balance, while the monkeys are still climbing trees,
> and the tail is absoulutely neccessary.
> because they need them to chew raw meat and bone, tear flesh, chew uncooked
> vegetables... But humans have much smaller mouth and jaw, because they
> learnt to use tools to cut food into smaller pieces and
> use fire to cook stuff and make them much easy to eat.
> at least 10 thousand years, they don't need a big jaw to tear animal flesh.
Wow!
Is your major biology?
Have you ever taken a course of biology in your life?
If yes, I will check out this U. of Minnesota..
Fantastic place to get a degree :->
bye
cha...@spry.com
> In article <4j2fsm$p...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
> dy...@cs.umn.edu (Dongxiao Yue) writes:
> > When a body part is no longer needed, that part will be
> > gradually degenerating. After a long time, the part will disappear
> > because it is useless.
This explains why neo boxers like Yue can exist with little or no
brain cell at all. This also explain why Yue's right hand is so much
stronger than his left hand.
> > Can someone discuss and narrow the selection from the above possibilities?
> > Or suggest alternative explanations?
>
> Is there any reason for this outside of a
> racist agenda? There are hundreds, if not
> thousands of scientific papers on the
> issue, why promote an amateur discussion
> in culture groups?
I agree, "bigot neo boxers" theory explains this
in full.
> Would like to see your discussion in why
> the average "Asian" nose is nearer in
> size to those of monkeys than the average
> "white" one. Probably because the "whites"
> discovered eyeglasses first?
Good one, but how do you explain Yue's flappy ears?
they are perfect for eyeglasses and his myopia and
racism.
Charles Liu