Scientists Show We've Been Losing Face For 10,000 Years

The Times (UK) ^ | 11-20-2005 | Jonathan Leake

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Blam. Soup probably started the trend.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
Gods, Graves, Glyphs PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[A CA Guy]

OK!

[sourcery]

No it isn't ... preferential breeding does not change one species into another.

Not by itself. And gasoline doesn't start your car all by itself, either. But in both cases, they are key ingredients of the recipe.

We know that cars run (in spite of the fact that gasoline is insufficient by itself,) and that evolution works (in spite of the fact that natural selection is insufficient by itself.) If it didn't, people wouldn't spend anywhere near as much money as they do on genetic algorithms, nor pervasively put them to mission critical use. Denying evolution is equivalent to denying the possibility of airplanes: both positions are contradicted by existence proofs.

[sourcery]

Yes.

[ValerieUSA]

The surge in dental problems is the proliferation of sugar in our diets now.
In ancient Rome when the citizens could afford some sweets, their teeth deteriorated over the lifetime of the individual, while the slaves who were never given expensive sugar died with broken down skeletons from hard labor, but their teeth were great.

That was not evolution either.

It's surprising how so many people think everything is "evolution." That's what modern scientific education does for us...... sheeesh!

[brytlea]

I agree. This is stupid science to say: Softer food may not be the only cause.

It would not be a cause, period. It might ALLOW a smaller face as the larger muscles would not be needed to chew uncooked or harder foods. But it wouldn't CAUSE it. Evolutionary theory would suggest that an advantage of some sort must be given to those with smaller faces in order for them to become the norm.

Surely sexual selection could cause it, but there is some reason for that selection. Generally mate selection is based on factors that show greater health or fertility, or things like that.

susie

[Rytwyng]

Of course, we as WAPFers know that this is caused by diet, not genetics. The agricultural revolution reduced dietary quality by reducing the proportion of vitamin-rich animal fats and organs in the diet (in favor of less fat-rich grains). All over the world, a decline in height, bone ruggedness,and dental health is associated with the agricultural transition. And a second, even worse decline, is associated with the transition to industrialized foods, as Price documented.

Methinks it's time for a Weston A Price ping.

[Rytwyng]

you might want to read the link in post 48.

[brytlea]

I actually read an interesting article suggesting that humans (and other creatures) preferred mates who were more symetrical. Being more symetrical suggestd better health, because when you were ill while growing, you didn't grow as uniformly. Don't know if it had any merit, but it made sense.
susie

[Mamzelle]

You are reasoning backwards, but only assume it works forwards. The evidence is only interesting, provocative and plausible. It is neither compelling nor necessary.

Only when you can duplicate speciation in the lab, under reproducible conditions (something that was once taught to me when I worked in a lab was a very necessary part of science), does it start becoming the law and dogma that evos claim. And I'm not talking viruses, single-cells or asexually reproducing creatures.

Someday, you may manage it. I find it highly educational that it has not been accomplished thus far, with so many intelligent minds and nifty gizmos...

We can make another airplane anytime we want to. I find your analogy just plain silly.

[brytlea]

I think because I don't frequent these threads, Im unclear why the subject of different species has been raised. I didnt see anything in the article talking about. What am I missing?
susie

[Wonder Warthog]

"People with more refined favial features may be more attractive to the opposite sex and therefore more successful breeders. That's not evolution."

Sure it is. EXACTLY "survival of the fittest. In this case the "fittest factor" is "attractiveness to the human female". Also postulated to be why only human females have large "tetas" compared to the rest of the primates.

[Mamzelle]

You see it implied by the posts in the thread--whenever a dog grows a longer tail than another dog, evos see miracles happening. I'm just amazed at a university sceintist will allowing himself to be quoted speculating that softer food makes for rounder faces...

[Wonder Warthog]

"The teeth of these people did not not harden through the generations in response to their food."

Since all teeth are the same fundamental chemical composition, it is impossible for evolution to make them harder. Have to switch over to a different chemical subsrate, and since the calcium system has been selected for over millions of years, that just ain't gonna happen.

[ValerieUSA]

Gasoline may be part of the process of running a car engine, but it does not change a car into a pickup truck.

Preferential breeding may eventually change the outward appearance of people, but it does not play a part in the species branching of horses and elephants and jackrabbits from the primordial soup. That's just silly to think so.

[ValerieUSA]

"Evolution" was raised, and that's what evolution is all about.

[mewzilla]

Gee, what's not to love about a prognathic snout?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Only when you can duplicate speciation in the lab, under reproducible conditions (something that was once taught to me when I worked in a lab was a very necessary part of science), does it start becoming the law and dogma that evos claim. And I'm not talking viruses, single-cells or asexually reproducing creatures."

It's been done. The test species was a variety of fruit fly. The result was two different species of fruit files that couldn't interbreed (i.e. they were more different genetically, for instance, than lions and tigers, or horses and jackasses).

[ValerieUSA]

No, you're kidding!
Something is impossible for evolution to accomplish?
How about the very development of teeth? You contradict yourself and explain it away with millions of years. Very convenient.