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

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

[ValerieUSA]

Some people will believe anything.

[Ma3lst0rm]

Populations shift over time as do traits. Trait drift is not the same thing as macroevolution. Though the media and many scientists and "educators" insist to clouding what evolution is and isn't so that every biological discovery is written in evo-speak. I'm not sure what an evolution denier is being that evolution is not a monolithic idea. I personally believe that change occurs in species groups, one would have to be a fool to not believe that. Do I believe that trait drift otherwise known as microevolution produces new phyla? No I don't. I also don't believe in the "standard" model abiogenises. Belief in abiogenises and in macroevolution is a matter of faith not far removed from a belief in a deity. Talk of “evolution deniers” is a political statement not a scientific one, and when a scientist resorts to politics to force the acceptance or exclude the ideas of others the scientist should reconsider the strength of their ideas. I think it would be far better if modern scientists would take some guidence from Kant and stop the posturing in a futil attempt to use science as a weapon against "God". I think Darwin would be ashamed of the behavior of some of his progeny in as much as their inability to address openly and honesty the deficits of his theory nor expand it to include directed evolution.

[Mamzelle]

I've been all through the claims of speciation of fruit flies. Is this Dr. Wu of the U of Chicago?

I guess you can play around with definitions--this is usually the escape hatch of evos. While you may decry the intelligence of those who doubt or merely challenge the "law" of evolution--we just might have a common sense understanding of what evolution means--new species from old. You ain't got no NEW yet.

[Popman]

True story:

When my 5 year old went to the dentist, he had 3 small cavities. The dentist wanted to fill then with real expensive white resin filling. It would have cost us about $600.

I asked him why we should spend so much money to fill his teeth with the most expensive filling money can buy when his baby teeth were going to fall out in a matter of months and the cavities were actually minor in nature.

He gave me an answer my 5 year thought was really stupid. "Because his teeth might rot down to his bone before they fall out"

I almost keyed his brand new Mercedes when I went out the door

I changed dentist

[Mamzelle]

re: Talk of “evolution deniers” is a political statement not a scientific one, and when a scientist resorts to politics to force the acceptance or exclude the ideas of others the scientist should reconsider the strength of their ideas.)))

That's not bad. Science is not, or shouldn't be, about "accepting" anything.

Hah--you know, they sound like a worn-out preacher making an altar call!

re:I think Darwin would be ashamed of the behavior of some of his progeny)))

"Follow the money"--somebody's franchise is being threatened. It's all about passing the plate.

[balrog666]

Invasion-of-the-clowns ping.

[Ichneumon]

Softer food makes faces grow smaller! LOL! Someone give that PhD a grant so he'll shut up! Maybe he'll grow a face without a mouth... If you cut the tail off a mouse, will his offspring be without tails?

That's not what he's saying. Try again.

[Ichneumon]

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

Yes, it does. Or at least it can and has.

(Aren't they teaching biology in school anymore?)

[Mamzelle]

OK--how about people needing to develop cooking methods for smaller jaws--because the men have been chasing the girls with the sweet baby face for about twenty generations?

Do I get a grant?

[Ichneumon]

That does not explain the "evolution" of bacteria changed into a variety of fish changed into a variety of mammals....

Sure it does.

[oblomov]

“The presumption is that people must have chosen mates with smaller, shorter faces — but quite why this would be is less clear.”

One explanation might be the principle of neoteny.

[bert]

The man discovered what has been known to orthodondists for eons.

He should have read a little more before making the announcement.

[Ichneumon]

To me it seems, in any case, that it has nothing to do with survival, but an appropriate fit to a more graceful life, something Darwinism rejects as a factor....

Say what? Please don't try to make assertions about "Darwinism" when you aren't terribly familiar with it.

[Ichneumon]

Choosing a mate because she has a pretty face is natural SELECTION, NOT "evolution".

...and the difference would be...?

Back to biology class with you.

[sono]

This is obviously Bush's fault.

[bert]

....just variations within a species......



Ha, ha ha...... That is the definition of evolution.

[Matchett-PI]

"Inbreeding will do that."

LOL

[Ichneumon]

[Changes in diet are thought to be the main cause. The switch to softer, farmed foods means that jawbones, teeth, skulls and muscles do not need to be as strong as in the past.]

Seems to carry a hint of Lamarkian Evolution.

Not at all, although I can see how it could be misread that way.

He's not saying that softer foods *caused* the genetic changes, he's saying that in an "environment" of softer foods, mankind no longer needed such long, strong jaws, and selection was then free to make the beneficial trade-off of larger craniums (with the resulting smaller faces/jaws).

[Ichneumon]

Darwinists claim that good looks suppresses your immune system,

No they don't.

and, thus, those surviving with good looks must be very strong in immunity. Eg. the peacock with the biggest feathers gets chosen coz that's the strongest who can fight the immune supression best.

Wrong, sorry.