Greyclouds
March 16th, 2009, 2:23 pm
A recent (edit: the article was posted in 1994, so I guess not so recent, hah! Still, it is listed on the site and has not been removed) article on www.answersingenesis.com was revealed to me on another blog post, and I thought it would be a great example of why everyone should NOT patronize this site.
The article is entitled, "Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?," and it deals primarily with a "hypothesis" that many ancient Homo erectus fossils MIGHT be due to adaptive dietary changes, and NOT due to natural selection of alleles (as predicted by Evolutionary Theory).
Here's a prominent quote that I will highlight and explain WHY it is absolutely preposterous from the get-go!
Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called 'primitive' erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the 'primitive' facial and skull features have nothing to do with evolution, but are due to the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood, thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead, making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become 'set in concrete' as adult characters.
Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten, Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and Neanderthal features. Custance's works should be compulsory reading for all anthropologists, whether creationist or evolutionist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp
This is the reference denoted by the "52nd" endnote in this passage:
Custance A., 1975. Genesis and early man. The Doorway Papers, Volume II. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 183-184, 208- 211.
Ok, first of all, HILARIOUS REFERENCE! It is used as a scientific primary source, yet the book itself is NOT a scientific book!
Secondly, the author of this article failed to note one critical thing that we know about modern human cultures: there are people who are living RIGHT NOW who eat half-cooked/raw foods and do not form such a maligned jaw structure.
Let's meet them: [/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit[/url]
Yes, "Eskimos" consume tons of raw meats and fat out of necessity. Yet, their skull structure does not "deform" as predicted by Custance et al.
If it did, then Custance would have a shaky leg to stand upon. As it currently exists? His 1972 hypothesis was DOA.
The article is entitled, "Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?," and it deals primarily with a "hypothesis" that many ancient Homo erectus fossils MIGHT be due to adaptive dietary changes, and NOT due to natural selection of alleles (as predicted by Evolutionary Theory).
Here's a prominent quote that I will highlight and explain WHY it is absolutely preposterous from the get-go!
Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called 'primitive' erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the 'primitive' facial and skull features have nothing to do with evolution, but are due to the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood, thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead, making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become 'set in concrete' as adult characters.
Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten, Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and Neanderthal features. Custance's works should be compulsory reading for all anthropologists, whether creationist or evolutionist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp
This is the reference denoted by the "52nd" endnote in this passage:
Custance A., 1975. Genesis and early man. The Doorway Papers, Volume II. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 183-184, 208- 211.
Ok, first of all, HILARIOUS REFERENCE! It is used as a scientific primary source, yet the book itself is NOT a scientific book!
Secondly, the author of this article failed to note one critical thing that we know about modern human cultures: there are people who are living RIGHT NOW who eat half-cooked/raw foods and do not form such a maligned jaw structure.
Let's meet them: [/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit[/url]
Yes, "Eskimos" consume tons of raw meats and fat out of necessity. Yet, their skull structure does not "deform" as predicted by Custance et al.
If it did, then Custance would have a shaky leg to stand upon. As it currently exists? His 1972 hypothesis was DOA.