tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post617285438249411339..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Why are we the naked ape?Peter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-74150963094056284022013-09-23T17:04:56.978-04:002013-09-23T17:04:56.978-04:00IIRC ancient writers seem to mention white redhead...<i>IIRC ancient writers seem to mention white redheads in lots of places e.g. Thrace, Russia etc.</i><br /><br />Kyrgyz of central Asia were described as a highly redheaded population until Islamic and Chinese introgression darkened them. Even so, redhead throwbacks occur. <br /><br />Genghis Khan and many of his relatives are reported to have been redheads. <br /><br />Redheads crop up sporadically in Kurdistan (northern Iraq). ]<br /><br />Finally: a friend of mine who is pure Egyptian (but Christian), and whose husband is a white American, had a redhead child! Yet the recessive has to come from both parents, so she, the Eqyptian, must carry the gene too. And indeed ancient Egyptian history records redheads in their country, long ago. <br /><br />So yes... it was once widespread, and was largely replaced EXCEPT in the foggy reaches of NW Europe. <br /><br />Oh, and there are lots of redheaded Jews too. Can anyone explain that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-8606560211499796952013-09-20T00:24:30.661-04:002013-09-20T00:24:30.661-04:00"They inhabited the foggiest part of Europe. ..."They inhabited the foggiest part of Europe. And also, prior to the deforestation by the Anglo-Saxon occupiers, it very heavily forested"<br /><br />IIRC ancient writers seem to mention white redheads in lots of places e.g. Thrace, Russia etc.<br /><br />I wonder if the white redhead thing came first but only survived in the remote NW.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-57936422207192276032013-09-16T17:29:30.742-04:002013-09-16T17:29:30.742-04:00why do so many Celts go red instead of tanning if ...<i> why do so many Celts go red instead of tanning if other depigmented people can tan?<br /></i><br /><br />They inhabited the foggiest part of Europe. And also, prior to the deforestation by the Anglo-Saxon occupiers, it very heavily forested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-43407900980220835752013-09-16T17:27:43.633-04:002013-09-16T17:27:43.633-04:00But did a gene for tanning evolve after depigmenta...<i>But did a gene for tanning evolve after depigmentation </i><br /><br />Well... the ginger (pale/redhead) gene seems to be older than the "white but tannable" complex. A tannable-white skin can change with the seasons -- ginger can't. <br /><br />I suspect that the ginger gene represented an OVERCORRECTION to the selection pressures. And since it came first, perhaps it was once far more widespread. But after a genetic path for tannable whitness evolved, that replaced the less optimal ginger gene.<br /><br />Interestingly, the oldest Chinese descriptions of whites, describe green-eyed redheads. The blonde/blue complex came later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-63612018702981026032013-09-14T14:18:19.429-04:002013-09-14T14:18:19.429-04:00Speaking of skin tone why do so many Celts go red ...Speaking of skin tone why do so many Celts go red instead of tanning if other depigmented people can tan?<br /><br />I was surprised to hear that the Iberians are of a similar skin tone to northwestern Europeans when they're kept out of the sun for prolonged periods. But I've also noticed of Yezidi Kurds that they can be very light like Europeans, but that they can also be very dark if they work in the fields. And I don't think this is related to their castes because light and dark Yezidis can look alike.<br /><br />Of course this verifies that the origins of depigmentation lie in sexual selection - lots of people with genes for light skin would only be depigmented if kept out of the sun. This may also be the origin of the practice of wearing the veil by Greek and Persian women in the ancient world - to retain the good looks of their northern, IE foremothers.<br /><br />But did a gene for tanning evolve after depigmentation to allow pale skinned people to survive in Mediterranean climates?Bones and Behaviourshttp://w11.zetaboards.com/bonesandbehavioursnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-29356837096635173712013-09-13T19:57:15.872-04:002013-09-13T19:57:15.872-04:00"a simple subtraction or sequence alignment....."a simple subtraction or sequence alignment..should provide interesting results..I am sure it has been done and you guys know the result..."<br /><br />I'm a chemical engineer, not an anthropologist! This is just a hobby interest for me. So, no, I don't know the result. Probably some real anthropologists do know. <br /><br />".... The oldest colorphase mutation in modern man is the ginger (pale/redhead) gene..."<br /><br />I should correct myself. The oldest known colorphase mutation in modern men **that affects the hair**, is the ginger gene. The lightening of the skin may well predate it. The parents of the first redhead, were probably Amerind-bronze, not tropical black.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-3773259700631434192013-09-12T19:30:42.850-04:002013-09-12T19:30:42.850-04:00This is a valuable contribution to one of the most...This is a valuable contribution to one of the most interesting evo bio questions - thanks!<br /><br />What do you think of the pubic louse evidence - that human and gorilla pubic lice diverged around 3.3 MYA? When you mentioned in the main post that most people are looking for human-specific traits to justify hairlessness, I figured this is what you meant - human-specific stuff happens much later than 3.3 MYA. But then in a comment you said more like 100,000 YA. Do you think the pubic lice DNA evidence isn't good evidence of when denudation occurred, or something else?Sister Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01003897317594535536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-71219281330833601972013-09-12T17:30:12.229-04:002013-09-12T17:30:12.229-04:00Anonymous above,
That's right, I forgot about ...Anonymous above,<br />That's right, I forgot about that.<br />But, as said above, a simple subtraction or sequence alignment, of two very different modern populations of which only one is suspected to carry archaic DNA, should provide interesting results, at least for anything older than 50-100 000 years genes.<br /><br />I am sure it has been done and you guys know the result.ben10noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-62187993489556035282013-09-12T12:30:43.740-04:002013-09-12T12:30:43.740-04:00Ben10 -- both European blonds, and Australasian bl...Ben10 -- both European blonds, and Australasian blonds, have been shown to be due to relatively recent (post-N-thal) mutations. The oldest colorphase mutation in modern man is the ginger (pale/redhead) gene, which occurred in Paleolithic Europe -- the first white men were freckled redheads. <br /><br />N-thals had their own MCR1 mutation in some individuals, which suggests that some N-thals could have been redheads or otherwise lightly pigmented. But the N-thal MCR1 mutation did NOT introgress to modern populations --we have our own MCR1 mutations which are different from N-thal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-64805851604114654952013-09-12T10:32:49.400-04:002013-09-12T10:32:49.400-04:00Would it be it possible to infer Neanderthal genet...Would it be it possible to infer Neanderthal genetic sequence in modern humans by a 'subtracting technique'?<br />For example subtract the genomes: Australian aborigines(assuming it contains some Neanderthal) - African San(assuming 0% Neanderthal) = N sequences<br /><br />Among these N sequences, anything older than say, 100 000 years, is potentially Neanderthal. Then try to relate these old sequences to any phenotypic differences, for example aborigines have blond hairs. Could that be from Neanderthals?Ben10noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-57349765586346911292013-09-11T16:04:09.142-04:002013-09-11T16:04:09.142-04:00Sorry but social signaling could have evolved very...Sorry but social signaling could have evolved very simply by hair color mutations, without the loss of a critical structure such as the pelt. After all, hairlessness carries some significant disadvantages too. The trait would need to be offset by a very powerful advantage. So for now I'm sticking with the persistence hunting hypothesis for the explanation of hairlnessness... and a lot of the rest of our anatomy. (cf Born to Run, Chris MacDougall, Chap. 28)<br /><br />As to the Neanderthal-Vitamin D issue... how does ANY furred critter make Vit. D? In the oils on the fur itself, of course, and then it's resorbed. Even a very dark animal can make Vit D this way, though some N-thals seem to have been lightly pigmented. For that matter, naked modern humans don't get much Vit D if they sunbathe for an hour, and then jump in the water -- rinsing away the D before it can be resorbed. Because it happens in the external oil... and that can happen in hair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-89498732666702881822013-09-10T17:37:34.687-04:002013-09-10T17:37:34.687-04:00Darwin's mistake was to think there was a tren...Darwin's mistake was to think there was a trend towards hairlessness in humans. His incorrect observation that body hair is a functionally useless evolutionary leftover led to the conclusion that it's complete loss is an evolutionary inevitability. It isn't useless so it isn't inevitable and I dispute that there ever was such a thing as a 'trend towards hairlessness'. <br /><br />Judith Rich Harris' mistake is to suggest parental selection via infanticide - which is historically used to reject those infants that don't conform to normal expectation - would be used to selectively choose death for the normal hairy infant and life for the abnormal less hairy ones.<br /><br />Sandel's mistake is to try to attribute human 'hairlessness' to the primate ape characteristic of lower hair density than the average mammal. But what distinguishes the human coat from both most mammals and all other apes is smaller vellus type body hairs across the juvenile form, not reduced hair density. There is no evidence of hair loss, just smaller hair size.<br /><br />My mistake was to fall into the same trap of thinking humans have both smaller hairs AND that they shifted further apart - ie changed distribution across our skin. I don't think there is evidence of significant change to the distribution of follicles across our skin; the hairs are just smaller, not further apart.<br /><br />If there are other changes - such as to the density of follicular nerve endings that would indicate adaptation for more - or less - sensitivity, I'm not aware. But I'm not aware anyone has looked.Ken Fabianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774574952211541339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-81348900670346516762013-09-10T17:19:45.548-04:002013-09-10T17:19:45.548-04:00I don't want to sound like a race denier but t...I don't want to sound like a race denier but the form of the foot is notoriously affected by the individual's life history as well as by heredity. For example in Forth's book about Austronesian wildmen he provides an image of Negrito feet splayed out as a result of the way they live.<br /><br />Before saying that neanderthals lost the foot anatomy that was evolved by earlier species of Homo, I'd like to see their feet compared to different living populations round the world and especially LPA people and those living without footwear.<br /><br />And how hairy are mountain gorillas compared to lowland gorillas and just how well does that hair keep them warm up there anyway?Bones and Behaviourshttp://w11.zetaboards.com/bonesandbehavioursnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-75026620626976645682013-09-10T16:25:23.270-04:002013-09-10T16:25:23.270-04:00Humans may be a more basal species that living ape...Humans may be a more basal species that living apes. A chimp foetus has a foot made for walking, hair on its head and eyebrows, just like modern humans. Chimps ect are actually quite specialised, and, just as they seem to have lost feet adapted for running, as their ancestors possessed, they may be descended from a something that had lost fur, and then got hairy again. So now they have have skin darkening and scanty hair. It is noteworthy that the Bonobo retains a juvenile white anal tuft and yet its face darkens at a younger age than chimps' do. <br /><br />Neanderthals seem to have lost feet adapted for running which their ancestors possesed. Presumably Neanderthals became furry through being specialised for cold weather (maybe they could no longer use <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting" rel="nofollow">persistence hunting</a> with a coat of fur, as they would overheat). <br />The <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/03/neanderthals-came-in-all-colors/#.Ui961MaUSQh" rel="nofollow">hair colour of Neanderthals</a> may have been related to them having being camouflaged to ambush hunt. The post suggests another possibility: the Neanderthal may have altered the colour of their coats as they matured. <br /><br />Neanderthals infants had to have thick fur and maybe they had special fur colour to elicit care. Neanderthals are supposed to have been polygynous (<a href="" rel="nofollow">here</a>) and I think adult Neanderthal hairless facial skin would have been very dark, like the mountain gorilla, which is the darkest skinned and most polygynous ape.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-82725629486568274002013-09-10T10:31:32.672-04:002013-09-10T10:31:32.672-04:00Neandertals were furry, so they couldn't make ...Neandertals were furry, so they couldn't make Vit. D?<br />So, them too didn't need it?<br /><br />Why then, do only moderns European seem to have evolve fair skin to make VitD when nobody before them (neandertals and early Europeans), or nobody north of them where light is even dimmer (inuits, eskimos) seem to have evolve fair skin for this purpose?<br />Oh, I know. Sexual selection, now it makes sense. So let me reformulate my question:<br /><br />Why is the Vit. D hypothesis still the only one mentioned in official schoolbooks?<br /><br />No, it's not by fear of hurting kid's feelings with the word 'sex' since kids are already fed a propaganda of tolerance for all sort of sexual practices, so why, do you think? <br /><br />ben10noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-71525002285917873302013-09-09T21:49:56.830-04:002013-09-09T21:49:56.830-04:00I made a badly worded statement in comment before ...I made a badly worded statement in comment before last - I said "In the absence of an insulation function they tend to show adaptation for sensory purposes." I didn't mean to imply the sensory function is a consequence of furlessness. In the hairs that are left and are not being used for insulation, adaptations for sensory purposes just stand out more obviously. Ken Fabianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774574952211541339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-71226163286056135392013-09-09T21:34:06.317-04:002013-09-09T21:34:06.317-04:00B&B - I think the point is that this function ...B&B - I think the point is that this function has not been regained, because it has never been lost. However it appears to be subject to/capable of considerable modification and specialisation for a variety of sensory purposes, even within species that do use fur as insulation. A "reversal to furlessness' - in the sense of changes to hair size and density such that it no longer functions well for insulation has taken place, no question. Actual loss of body hairs - denuding - has NOT taken place.<br /><br />This fundamental function of the hair/follicle package has been there since before there were mammals and is still there, I think because it IS so useful. And because it is so useful it's important to give it the full consideration it is due.<br /><br /> Thick fur suited to insulation still has a sensory function, but it doesn't work so well at fine sensitivity because hairs laid against each other dissipate the movements and vibrations that need to reach the nerves in follicle and skin. Like a lot of traits that represents a trade-off.<br /><br />In "When? Why? and How? Some Speculations on the Evolution of the Vertebrate Integument", author PAUL F A Maderson ( http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/1/159.abstract ) suggests mammal hairs evolved from a mechano-sensory precursor, that subsequently acquired it's thermoregulatory role after mutations increased their density -<br /><br /> "It is suggested that hairs arose from highly specialized sensory appendages of mechanoreceptor function which facih tated thermoregulatory behavioral activity in early synapsids Specialization of cellular differentiation within these units led to the appearance of dermal papillae A chance mutation led to subsequent multiplication of the originally sparsely, but spatially arranged papillae, causing the induction of a sufficient density of “sensory hairs to constitute an lnsulatory body covering”. The lnsulatory properties of this “prolopelage were the subject of subsequent selection but the sensory function of mammalian hairs remains important”"<br /><br />It's not that mole rats, elephants and humans uniquely evolved sensory functions for their hairs after the insulation function was lost. Or that we share similar evolutionary histories because we share furlessness; the sensory function was always there and it gets modified by the unique evolutionary story of each species.Ken Fabianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774574952211541339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-48301022813016378802013-09-09T18:57:35.739-04:002013-09-09T18:57:35.739-04:00Ken, if in the absence of an insulation function h...Ken, if in the absence of an insulation function hairs tend to show adaptation for sensory purposes, isn't it simply possible that body hair evolved for sensory reasons first, maybe in a fossorial therapsid, and the hairs have returned by default to their original function?<br /><br />I simply can't think what humans or naked mole rats have in common with elephants that all of them would lose their coats of fur whilst evolving the same new sensory function for the hairs. Of course if this sensitivity is just a side effect of the reversal to furlessness, then surely hairless mammals really do count as being denudated.Bones and Behaviourshttp://w11.zetaboards.com/bonesandbehavioursnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-33890477091547108152013-09-09T18:16:17.099-04:002013-09-09T18:16:17.099-04:00Peter, you said -
"...none of them explain th...Peter, you said -<br />"...none of them explain the denudation of human skin. In fact, they would be an argument against denudation."<br /><br />Except we have not been 'denuded' and the observable reality is that humans have never lost their body hair - it is just, (pre-puberty), all fine vellus hair. Post puberty it's highly variable but it's not absent.<br /><br />What our lineage shows is a change of the size of hairs and of their distribution. It is a mistake to treat that as the same as a true loss of body hair. <br /><br />The change in size and distribution does affect the way they work as mechano-sensory detectors. ie finer, sparser hairs (all else equal) are more sensitive to smaller impulses and therefore are superior detectors of smaller insects and ectoparasites. <br /><br />Like with the other (also incorrectly named) 'hairless' animals - mole rats, hippos and elephants for example, we have hairs and use them for sensory purposes. In the absence of an insulation function they tend to show adaptation for sensory purposes. <br /><br />Argue that the changes to this function have minimal evolutionary relevance if you like but please don't treat a function as useful as this one as inconsequential. It's saved me numerous times from Australian Paralysis Tick bits, because I felt them before they dug in. If you had experience of Paralysis Ticks you could not say that a means of avoiding them was insignificant. Very significant I would say, especially in the absence of modern medicine.<br /><br />From Darwin to Jablonski, body hair is treated as effectively non-functional and it's sensory function has not merely been treated as incosequential but as Non-existent. Cut that any way you like, that is a serious mistake and a whole body of scholarship on this subject is tainted by that omission.Ken Fabianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774574952211541339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-31028919137398439002013-09-09T08:53:11.073-04:002013-09-09T08:53:11.073-04:00Sean,
I tried to get permission to post those oth...Sean,<br /><br />I tried to get permission to post those other photos but was refused. Permission is granted only for "educational purposes."<br /><br />Anon and others,<br /><br />Selection for female hairlessness was partly sexual selection and partly natural selection. This denudation of the skin may have helped ancestral women on the mate market, but the main advantage would have been after mating, as a means to modify male behavior in the direction of increased provisioning and protection.<br /><br />We're also looking at a period farther back in time, perhaps between 500,000 and 100,000 years ago. The intense sexual selection of European women would have been between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago.<br /><br />Jayman,<br /><br />I agree with Judith in the sense that parental selection represented the first stage of this evolutionary process. With longer juvenile dependency, and increased maternal investment, this selection pressure came to encompass adult women as well.<br /><br />Ken,<br /><br />Yes, I'm aware of the points you raised, but none of them explain the denudation of human skin. In fact, they would be an argument against denudation.<br /><br />Tyrion,<br /><br />Maternal investment is generally greater than paternal investment, so women were the ones who needed provisioning and protection.<br /><br />I've read many evolutionary explanations of male hair loss, but none of them seem convincing. I suspect male hair loss was useful in some way for male-male relations, i.e., as a way of signaling that one is an older, mated male. I don't believe that women find bald men sexually attractive, either now or in the past.<br /><br />Bones and Behaviours,<br /><br />The evidence for Neanderthal hairiness is suggestive and not conclusive. Ultimately, the Neanderthal genome may provide an answer.<br /><br />The terms I've seen are either "finger bone ridges" or "knuckle ridges." At one time, they were thought to facilitate knuckle walking, but we see them in primates that don't knuckle-walk. It might be a good idea to go to the West Hunter blog to get more information.<br /><br /><br /> Peter Fros_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-82561893225471580972013-09-08T20:33:56.476-04:002013-09-08T20:33:56.476-04:00Peter, I want to find out more about those ridges ...Peter, I want to find out more about those ridges on the finger bones of chimpanzees and neanderthals but not ours.<br /><br />Can you point me in the right direction by telling me the name of the ridges please?Bones and Behaviourshttp://w11.zetaboards.com/bonesandbehavioursnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-91583471554361744872013-09-08T18:38:14.548-04:002013-09-08T18:38:14.548-04:00Aside from my concerns that failure to understand ...Aside from my concerns that failure to understand the functions of body hair has skewed most scholarship so far - I argue that sensory function stands out as the most significant function it has - I still have problems with most of the hypotheses that attempt to explain furlessness in humans. <br /><br />The sexual selection hypothesis relies too much on the transposing the attitudes of modern, furless humans to hairiness ie it's a form of anthropomorphism that attributes our modern, mostly socially acquired attitudes to body hair to our distant, furry ancestors.<br /><br />Judith Rich Harris and Parental Selection I think suffers from the same innate problem; lack of clear reason why furry hominids, expecting a furry child would reject them out of a preference for less hairy babies. That's something that might happen at the tail end of the process of becoming furless, not the beginning. <br /><br />I think it would require some other significant element for a clear preference for furlessness to develop. Such as furlessness coming to indicate some form of superior fitness ie they are more successful hunters due to better endurance or they are less susceptible to disease. <br /><br />But I also think it is an important question whether there was a distinct mutation or combination of them that made a furless variant, from which we descended, or if it was a case of incremental change, such as would be expected from sexual selection. I think the furless juvenile form is suggestive of mutation that resulted in a clear and marked difference in those that carry it.<br /><br />The furless juvenile form, to my thinking, makes it less likely that it arrived via sexual selection. The adult variability, yes. I think those differences across different ethnic groups can be used to show that sexual selection results in variability in hair patterns. But that distinct juvenile human form with hair on head and only fine vellus hair elsewhere is universal. I think it had to be a distinct mutation Ken Fabianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774574952211541339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-70019554106058495882013-09-08T16:08:17.531-04:002013-09-08T16:08:17.531-04:00"
...
In addition, "When academic rankin..."<br />...<br />In addition, "When academic ranking amongst students was examined, the hairier men got better grades," said Dr Alias. The top six engineering graduates had more hair than the bottom eight.<br />And a study of 117 Mensa members (who have an IQ of at least 140) were also found to have a tendency to thick body hair. Some of the most intelligent men appeared to be those who had hair on their backs as well as on their chests.<br />"<br />Plus<br />"<br />1) Women from New Zealand and U.S rate as the most attractive those male bodies lacking any trunk hair, with a steady decline in attractiveness as hirsutism became more pronounced. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9441-y<br />...<br />"<br />Coincidence ;)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-5234781277024477232013-09-08T15:33:23.237-04:002013-09-08T15:33:23.237-04:00Reader,
You say that young bald men are more attr...Reader, <br />You say that young bald men are more attractice and successful in mating. Then why pharmaceutical companies are making a lot of money selling minoxidil, finasteride, etc??.and much young guys are in psycological therapy...and what about hair transplants.??Nathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-40265231066128203832013-09-08T13:37:17.548-04:002013-09-08T13:37:17.548-04:00Anti male pattern baldness drug Propecia is a 5α-r...Anti male pattern baldness drug Propecia is a 5α-reductase inhibitors that reduces baldness and hairyness hormone DHT and it reportedly causes 'brain fog' and and memory loss. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha_reductase" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-hirsute-of-higher-intelligence-1328285.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a>:-<br />"research amongst medical students in America found that 45 per cent of male trainee doctors were "very hairy", compared with less than 10 per cent of men generally. In Kerala, southern India, research among medical and engineering students and manual labourers showed that both groups of students had more body hair on average than manual workers.<br /><br />In addition, "When academic ranking amongst students was examined, the hairier men got better grades," said Dr Alias. The top six engineering graduates had more hair than the bottom eight.<br /><br />And a study of 117 Mensa members (who have an IQ of at least 140) were also found to have a tendency to thick body hair. Some of the most intelligent men appeared to be those who had hair on their backs as well as on their chests."<br /><br />"'I am fairly certain that the vast majority of hairy/hirsute men, compared to the respective 'much less' hirsute men of the same race and ethnic group, are strikingly more intelligent and/or educated, but only from a statistical point of view.'"Seannoreply@blogger.com