Data Suggests Variability Is Rapid

Imagine yourself among and being one of the Neanderthals.  Sitting in a cave with a perfect human brain for tens of thousands of years without having the ability to ride a horse or build a city but being able to make and use tools along with hunting and fishing.  And then say to yourself, “Gee, why wait any longer than tens of thousands of years, let’s ride and build.”  

There is considerable variability between tribes and nationalities, a question comes up…Does this require millions of years to accomplish? In a few recent studies over a course of a few months says  no! A human jawbone was studied in order to see what influenced its shape.

“why there is often a mismatch between the size of the lower face and the dentition, which, in turn, leads to increased prevalence of dental crowding and malocclusions in modern postindustrial populations.”

Here is something you could chew on, diet rather than evolution is the cause for the shape of the human jawbone. The jaws of hunters are bigger with more room for teeth, apparently this was due to the exercise of chewing rather than evolution. The article does in fact invokes evolution into the mix by suggesting soft foods triggered evolution. But here is an experiment for you. If you have kids, feed them large size meat for 18 years, and see if he or she stays free of wisdom tooth problems.

A tribe in Brazil known as Xavánte Indians who have a different structured head than neighboring tribes around them. What was the explanation for this among evolutionists? PNAS explained it by using culture as a triggering device for evolution. Live Science put it this way…

“Culture may trigger rapid evolution of various human features, suggests new research into the marital practices of a tribe from the Brazilian rainforest.”

The researchers were taking back a bit by their own conclusion, but a variant in features is not evolution, new information that creates new features like a new species from an unguided process is.  In another study which has been causing a headache for paleoanthropologists is their previously assumption on the human skull which they believed would evolve independently from others parts.

However, after further research, the skull they discovered was highly integrated rather than independent. So if change happened in one part then that change would affect everything else throughout the skull.

In phys.org

“The team tested whether certain parts of the skull – the face, the cranial base and the skull vault or brain case – changed independently, as anthropologists have always believed, or were in some way linked. The scientists simulated the shift of the foramen magnum (where the spinal cord enters the skull) associated with upright walking; the retraction of the face, thought to be linked to language development and perhaps chewing; and the expansion and rounding of the top of the skull, associated with brain expansion. They found that, rather than being separate evolutionary events, changes in one part of the brain would facilitate and even drive changes in the other parts.”

What is interesting from this study, the skulls were from the Middle Ages, variations they measured involved rapid, and recent changes!

There is still conflict among certain paleoanthropologists over Neanderthal Man because for years they always kept this ancient tribe separate from the rest of us but recent discoveries challenge that story outright. Charles Choi whose article is in live science would like to keep imagining that Neanderthal Man still remains different from us by claiming bigger brain structures separate us.

However, he did admit this…

“All in all, it remains unclear exactly how these brain differences might have set us apart from Neanderthals, Bastir cautioned. We only know how these skulls molded themselves around these brains, and not the precise structures of the brains in question.”

Phys.org follows up on Neanderthal Man by reporting about the discovery of one of their homes in the Ukraine, yes a home not a cave which included a frame made out of mammoth tusks. This indicates they had the ability to construct their own shelters rather than just sit in a cave for tens of thousands of years.

“Up till recently, most researchers studying Neanderthals had assumed they were simple wanderers, hiding out in caves when the weather got bad. Now however, the discovery of the underpinnings of a house built by a group of Neanderthals, some 44,000 years ago, turns that thinking on its head.”

“Instead of a clumsy, dim-witted people, it appears Neanderthals were more advanced than most had thought.”

The bed making in the Neanderthal house was in evolutionary time, 50,000 years earlier than what was previously assumed with bed making. Not only that, but evidence of herbal medicines, hearths, and maintenance work to keep them clean which are all indicators of  Neanderthals being “modern humans” who inhabited the site exercised intelligence, planning and foresight in their daily activities rather than just wondering around endlessly with lack of intelligence (being stupid) for 44,000 years.

This is designed variation within one human species, Neanderthal man wasn’t stupid nor wandering around endlessly before the light bulb lit and they didn’t differ from us because of the size of their brain, rather they were just like you and me and they behaved like us with the technology of their time.

They also interbred with modern humans and Denisovans which they are having a hard time explaining as it has been overturning a decade of invented beliefs about Neanderthal man. If members of these groups produced children, they are all the same species according to the biological definition of it, there is nothing that separates the species from one to another.

So if you take out all the conclusions based on evolutionary stories like the term, “emerged” and then throw out the old age assumptions, and then look at the remaining evidence and ask yourself whether it fits better into evolution or creation.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Data Suggests Variability Is Rapid

  1. So if you take out all the conclusions based on evolutionary stories like the term, “emerged” and then throw out the old age assumptions, and then look at the remaining evidence and ask yourself whether it fits better into evolution or creation

    Basically, Michael says that if we throw out all previous research (“conclusions”)( and all the physical evidence, (“assumptions”) then we are left with little support for evolution. Hmm..

    Of course, if we throw out a single 2,000-year-old sacred text, then we are left with zero support for creationism.

  2. “why there is often a mismatch between the size of the lower face and the dentition, which, in turn, leads to increased prevalence of dental crowding and malocclusions in modern postindustrial populations.”

    Michael should have consulted a dentist on this question. He could explain not only jaw-size discrepancies, but also why they started to occur in a big way about 1950, and are now decreasing in frequency. The genes for jaw and tooth size are fairly independent of each other. Under static circumstances, natural selection will drive the gene frequencies toward compatible sizes, and they will stay that way. With wholesale mass migration after WWII, people having genes for different tooth/jaw sizes intermarried much more frequently, and produced children with mismatched mouths. This is what my dentist told me many years ago. The effect had been studied rather thoroughly. No big surprise.

    Here is something you could chew on, diet rather than evolution is the cause for the shape of the human jawbone. The jaws of hunters are bigger with more room for teeth, apparently this was due to the exercise of chewing rather than evolution.

    Increased jaw size from chewing is called Lamarckism, and has been discredited for more than a century. On the other hand, EVOLUTION can drive jaw size over many generations by natural selection. We are surprised that you did not make the connection with changing beak sizes in Darwin’s finches. Of course, this has only been common knowledge for 200 years, so creationists might not yet have come across it. But everyone else has.

    The researchers were taking back a bit by their own conclusion, but a variant in features is not evolution, new information that creates new features like a new species from an unguided process is.

    Here, Michael parts company with science. Variants in features ARE evolution. Variants drive evolution. Pile up enough variants and you have a different species. Sometimes only a couple—such as color difference between two species of cichlid in Lake Victoria. Only one gene difference, but red males will not mate with blue females, and vice versa.

    “The team tested whether certain parts of the skull – the face, the cranial base and the skull vault or brain case – changed independently, as anthropologists have always believed, or were in some way linked.

    Perhaps the sensationalist PhysOrg thinks scientists have always believed this. If so, then PhysOrg has its head up its binding. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s 1915 classic, On Growth and Form, contains elaborate drawings of skulls superimposed upon grid lines to show how the various parts change in tandem by mathematically simple affine transformations. Anyone with a smattering of developmental biology will understand this at once.

    .

    This post is so full of errors that we suspect Michael of hitting the Christmas hot toddies early.

  3. There is considerable variability between tribes and nationalities, a question comes up…Does this require millions of years to accomplish? In a few recent studies over a course of a few months says no! A human jawbone was studied in order to see what influenced its shape.

    Michael, let me make this easier for you. There is no valid difference between people of different groups. And no one has said that ALL change needs millions of years..That is your strawman.

    This is designed variation within one human species, Neanderthal man wasn’t stupid nor wandering around endlessly before the light bulb lit and they didn’t differ from us because of the size of their brain, rather they were just like you and me and they behaved like us with the technology of their time

    Again this is a strawman. No one here thinks Neanderthals were stupid. They evidently thought like we did, and even much better than most Young Earth Creationists.

    They also interbred with modern humans and Denisovans which they are having a hard time explaining as it has been overturning a decade of invented beliefs about Neanderthal man. If members of these groups produced children, they are all the same species according to the biological definition of it, there is nothing that separates the species from one to another.

    How many times do we need to explain this to you: The ability to breed does not indicate that the species are the same, just that they are closely related. This is not how “species” is defined.

  4. How many times do we need to explain this to you:

    You’re not explaining it to Michael. He already knows it, but chooses to lie about it.

    What were you expecting?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s