Drop Outs Sleeping Rough show less baldness

[DammitLetMeIn]

http://www.aulis.com/twothirds2.htm

thoughts on the reasons?

 

[michael barry]

Was not expecting to see an article about cro-magnon men and neadrothals.


Exert:

"Cro-Magnon certainly evolved on the open plains, hence his tallness. (Average height of Cro-Magnon males was originally calculated to be 6' 0''—though the more accepted figure today is 5' 10''.) He developed pair-bonding and lived with one partner for life, on a defined small piece of territory adjacent with other similar pairs. (Thus the gibbon communities of today are actually the perfect model for suburbia.) He was appropriately long-sighted, and right-handed.

The above statements are to an extent a matter for debate. What follows is not—and is readily testable in respect of the items listed. Some of these items have in fact already been formally investigated and confirmed. My own research supports the remainder. It is quite clear that the left wing and the Labour Party represent our Neanderthal side, while the right wing and the Conservative Party represent our Cro-Magnon ancestry. And so if Labour MPs and members (I stress members) of the Labour Party were compared with Conservative MPs and members of the Conservative Party then the former would show:

A greater incidence of the big toe being shorter than the second toe. (All Neanderthal fossil feet and fossil footprints have the big toe shorter than the second toe. All Cro-Magnon fossil feet and fossil footprints show the big toe longer than the second toe.)

Greater incidence of the so-called simian line in the palm of the hand. (The simian line is a single division across the centre of the palm, which all apes have but most humans do not. The norm for humans is two lines—the so-called head and heart lines.)

A larger cerebellum.
Greater incidence of the pyknic body type and a lower incidence of the athletic body type.
A higher incidence of left-handedness.
A lower incidence of male pattern baldness.
Greater incidence of prominent eyebrows (including eyebrows which meet in the middle) and brow ridges.
A greater number of offspring (i.e. higher fertility).
Higher incidence of clinical neurosis and a lower incidence of clinical psychosis.
Higher incidence of short-sightedness and a lower incidence of long-sightedness.
Better night vision.
Greater susceptibility to hypnosis.
Greater proportion of sleeping time spent in dreaming time.
Higher incidence of 'drop-out' behaviours (sleeping rough, alcoholism, unemployment, drug addiction, etc.).
Shorter average height.
Lower average IQ."



Gee, I guess we have to evolve backwards to be more like the Cro-Magnons and neandrothals and we'll all regrow our hair right?

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Gee, I guess we have to evolve backwards to be more like the Cro-Magnons and neandrothals and we'll all regrow our hair right?

they ate raw foods no cooked

 

[Guest]

Gee, I guess we have to evolve backwards to be more like the Cro-Magnons and neandrothals and we'll all regrow our hair right?

they ate raw foods no cooked

Are you sure?

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Gee, I guess we have to evolve backwards to be more like the Cro-Magnons and neandrothals and we'll all regrow our hair right?

they ate raw foods no cooked

Are you sure?

well, we learned to cook 400,000 years ago. some sources say they cooked. But the eskimo didn't cook and lived free of chronic disease

But at any rate, the meat which they ate wasn't domesticated and contained a much lower fat content.

 

[The Gardener]

Then explain why Dr Weil is bald.

Or this fine fellow.

 

[JayB]

Gee, I guess we have to evolve backwards to be more like the Cro-Magnons and neandrothals and we'll all regrow our hair right?

they ate raw foods no cooked

Are you sure?

well, we learned to cook 400,000 years ago. some sources say they cooked. But the eskimo didn't cook and lived free of chronic disease

But at any rate, the meat which they ate wasn't domesticated and contained a much lower fat content.

Dude your arguments are so flawed and full of sh*t its not even funny. All your "facts" are nothing more than heresay. Cro magons existed 40,000 years ago my friend. So that is 360,000 years after fire was invented. Sorry to say, they most likely cooked their food.

your arguments are pure urban legend and flat out falsehoods. you document no proof in your claims... they are scientifically FALSE.

 

[The Gardener]

Cro magnons also only lived to be about 35 years old.

Yeah, if you were to kill all the humans that are 36 or older, you would CERTAINLY improve the average male Norwood amongst the population... but it hardly serves as proof that their diets had any role in it.

 

[SnowRider22]

Gee, I guess we have to evolve backwards to be more like the Cro-Magnons and neandrothals and we'll all regrow our hair right?

they ate raw foods no cooked

Are you sure?

well, we learned to cook 400,000 years ago. some sources say they cooked. But the eskimo didn't cook and lived free of chronic disease

But at any rate, the meat which they ate wasn't domesticated and contained a much lower fat content.

Dude your arguments are so flawed and full of sh*t its not even funny. All your "facts" are nothing more than heresay. Cro magons existed 40,000 years ago my friend. So that is 360,000 years after fire was invented. Sorry to say, they most likely cooked their food.

your arguments are pure urban legend and flat out falsehoods. you document no proof in your claims... they are scientifically FALSE.

I think he has a right to say what he wants, sorry.

 

[roki]

I think he has a right to say what he wants, sorry.

he does have the right to say what he wants
and insted of getting mad people should explain him nicely why they think he is wrong or just not reply at all
(that's just my point of view though if somebody wants to get mad over HairLossTalk.com post's that's there own problem)