Your opinion: Published, supported explanation of human evolution called "crackpot" by talk.orgins...

craig porkshouldersaltwatersodiumnitrite at
Thu Jul 24 14:12:30 EST 2003

James Michael Howard <jamesmichaelhoward at> wrote in message news:<b7fthv4asjucdu8n833bagtlkm06gejm6g at>...
> I invite you to read a published, supported explanation of human evolution that
> is labeled as "crackpot" at .
> I invite you to read "Androgens in Human Evolution" and voice your opinion after
> also looking at the supporting chart of relative levels of testosterone in
> humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans at
> .  (If you prefer, you can access this at
> page just above.)  I am not asking you to take the time to decide
> if you agree with the article or not, just decide if the article is "crackpot"
> or not.

	i think "crack pot" is a unfair. however i'm not a doctor nor do i
have any qualifications/experience in human/primate or even mammalian
development. i spotted a few things which left me uneasy with your
conclusions and have only had time for a quick look during lunch

the following aren't meant as criticism , just potential weakness to
your hypothesis. also i haven't read any of the references etc. so i
could be wrong.
if you take offence easyly the don't read any more

first things seen before even reading the article

- your graph which 'provides direct support'. there is no scale this
puts me off straight a way. the text says the graph is 'absolute
amount of testosterone' and 'comparative urinary androstanes in great
apes'. so i have no idea what it's showing? so is this total
testosterone per litre of urine? total per piss? total per litre/Kg
body weight? surly age, diet and sex are going to have an affect on
this? but there's no error bars. also if i understand correctly
androstanes are a class of steroids of which testosterone is a member
so the graph could be showing anything. you may think me cynical but i
start to read your article with no faith in your critical ability.

- 40 odd references, less than 10 are 5 years or newer, more than 10
are 20 years or older. a quick search shows every 6 months an approx.
average 1000 publications on testosterone and several 100 on DHEA.
there must be some up to date reviews? primary data that is solid will
be reviewed, the author wont be expecting citations 20 years after
it's been published.

i hope this helps, it seems an interesting article and i can see why
your upset by the crack pot label. my other points could be just style
things. e.g. how does the paragraph on testosterone and the
'diminished sexuality in women' relate to primate evolution?

More information about the Bioforum mailing list