The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[USincognito]

I rely on observation
not on speculation.

Speculation!

 

[USincognito]

I've also heard an argument that the control of fire for cooking provided a large increase in available calories, allowing more energy resource for the brain - which paid back in more efficient and effective behaviours, increasing calorie availability further; and also reducing the time required and force necessary for chewing, which allowed a reduction in size of the jaw muscles (temporalis and masseter) and their attachment ridges on the skull, which, in turn, allowed an increase in cranial volume without significant increase in head width, which is partly constrained by the female pelvis... (I'm not convinced by the latter part, but it seems possible).

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html

The story hinges on a protein called MYH16, a chief component of the powerful jaw muscles of many non-human primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. When the researchers examined human DNA samples from across the world, they discovered that we all share a defect in the gene that creates this protein.​

 

[AnotherAtheist]

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html

The story hinges on a protein called MYH16, a chief component of the powerful jaw muscles of many non-human primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. When the researchers examined human DNA samples from across the world, they discovered that we all share a defect in the gene that creates this protein.​

That's interesting. I wonder how much of the evolution of humans was affected by the need to compensate for this mutation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html

The story hinges on a protein called MYH16, a chief component of the powerful jaw muscles of many non-human primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. When the researchers examined human DNA samples from across the world, they discovered that we all share a defect in the gene that creates this protein.​

Ah; so a gene defect that would have been a selective disadvantage and not persist in the population, was not a selective disadvantage when cooking increased the available calorific value of the food - it was possible to stay well-nourished without the powerful jaw muscles previously necessary... perhaps

 

[joshua 1 9]

The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate. Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

Mammals began to evolve around 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. That is not so long ago. Is is all fairly recent compared to the almost 14 billion years the universe has been around.

 

[Heissonear]

Mammals began to evolve around 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. That is not so long ago. Is is all fairly recent compared to the almost 14 billion years the universe has been around.

.

Intellectual boasting.

The referenced physical evidence you tightly hold in hand has appearent age, one up by the Creator who said man shall not boast in his accomplishments.

Yes, you cannot defute apparent age and say that geologic history occurred. God did not create this world where those wise in their eyes could boast.

What He has withheld you do not possess. The price tags you have put on things is seriously over inflated. Tell me how I know.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There even is an annual man vs horse marathon run, which humans occasionally win - when it's hot.

The reason the horse is so big is the stomach is so big to digest the food. Man has a diet that is a lot more efficient and as a result he ends up with the smallest tummy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

. God did not create this world where those wise in their eyes could boast.

There is no problem with boasting about God and what He has done. The problem is when man tries to boast about himself. All praise, honor and glory belongs to God not us.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you have any idea how many scientific theories you rely on, every hour and day of your life?

We rely on God and the laws He created. Science and their theories are just an attempt to understand the laws and the Creation of God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

.

Intellectual boasting.

Beats the alternative:

The referenced physical evidence you tightly hold in hand has appearent age, one up by the Creator who said man shall not boast in his accomplishments.

Yes, you cannot defute apparent age and say that geologic history occurred. God did not create this world where those wise in their eyes could boast.

What He has withheld you do not possess. The price tags you have put on things is seriously over inflated. Tell me how I know.

...theological boasting

 

[klutedavid]

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html

The story hinges on a protein called MYH16, a chief component of the powerful jaw muscles of many non-human primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. When the researchers examined human DNA samples from across the world, they discovered that we all share a defect in the gene that creates this protein.​

How do we know that there was a mutation in a gene, that reduced the protein MYH16 in humans?

 

[klutedavid]

Mammals began to evolve around 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. That is not so long ago. Is is all fairly recent compared to the almost 14 billion years the universe has been around.

All attempts to date events in the past require the acceptance of assumptions.

Any proposed age of the universe is based on assumptions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

All attempts to date events in the past require the acceptance of assumptions.

Any proposed age of the universe is based on assumptions.

I do not worry about that. The dates are established by people with Phd's that are suppose to be experts in their field. So I leave that up to them to figure out. Some math I have done, like the spin down rate of the earth and the receding rate of the Moon. The math all checks out as far as I am able to verify what they are telling us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How do we know that there was a mutation in a gene, that reduced the protein MYH16 in humans?

They compared the functional gene that produces the protein in other primates with the gene in various human populations (same chromosome, same locus), by sequencing the DNA, and found what is known as a frameshift deletion mutation, where a chunk of the code sequence is missing, causing transcription of an incomplete sequence and a non-functional protein. The original paper explains the full details and provides a diagram with the full code sequences of the relevant exon (18) for 7 non-human primates and 6 diverse human populations.

 

[klutedavid]

They compared the functional gene that produces the protein in other primates with the gene in various human populations (same chromosome, same locus), by sequencing the DNA, and found what is known as a frameshift deletion mutation, where a chunk of the code sequence is missing, causing transcription of an incomplete sequence and a non-functional protein. The original paper explains the full details and provides a diagram with the full code sequences of the relevant exon (18) for 7 non-human primates and 6 diverse human populations.

Hello FrumiousBandersnatch.

As we discuss here, it is unlikely that MYH16 mutation would have led to the dramatic changes
in early hominid masticatory mechanics suggested by Stedman et al. It is also unlikely, therefore,
that MYH16 gene inactivation played a significant role in the craniofacial evolution of Homo. We further
demonstrate that the scenario of human brain evolution proposed by Stedman et al. is inconsistent with
current knowledge of neurocranial growth and development.

(Science Direct, Journal of human evolution, News and Views
Of muscle-bound crania and human brain evolution:
The story behind the MYH16 headlines
Melanie A. McCollum a, Chet C. Sherwood, Christopher J. Vinyard
C. Owen Lovejoy, Fred Schachat.
Division of Basic Medical Sciences, Mercer University School of Medicine,
Macon, GA 31207, USA b Department of Anthropology, Kent State University,
Kent, OH 44242, USA c Department of Anatomy, Northeastern Ohio Universities
College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH 44272, USA d Division of Biomedical Sciences,
Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA e Department of Cell Biology,
Division of Physiology, Duke University Medical School, Durham, NC 27710, USA)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As we discuss here, it is unlikely that MYH16 mutation would have led to the dramatic changes
in early hominid masticatory mechanics suggested by Stedman et al. It is also unlikely, therefore,
that MYH16 gene inactivation played a significant role in the craniofacial evolution of Homo. We further
demonstrate that the scenario of human brain evolution proposed by Stedman et al. is inconsistent with
current knowledge of neurocranial growth and development.

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen it. Stedman's was a speculative hypothesis, more a query than a claim - the amount of human brain development during ontogeny always indicated any effect would be small; it's good to hear it's been followed up in detail.

Superficially interesting but slightly unconvincing speculations aren't uncommon following such discoveries, and tend to be picked up by the media. Anthropologists sometimes call them 'just-so' stories because they seem rather too convenient and simplistic. Usually they're debunked fairly quickly, very occasionally they'll get solid evidential support, and sometimes they catch the popular imagination and hang around for years, like the Aquatic Ape hypothesis.

 

[USincognito]

How do we know that there was a mutation in a gene, that reduced the protein MYH16 in humans?

Is this a variation in "were you there"? Because it's not a very substantial objection. Geneticists have been working with DNA for a long time now. I think they've got it figured out better than Some Dude On The Internet.

 

[USincognito]

All attempts to date events in the past require the acceptance of assumptions.

Any proposed age of the universe is based on assumptions.

Assumptions!

 

[USincognito]

(Science Direct, Journal of human evolution, News and Views
Of muscle-bound crania and human brain evolution:
The story behind the MYH16 headlines
Melanie A. McCollum a, Chet C. Sherwood, Christopher J. Vinyard
C. Owen Lovejoy, Fred Schachat.

I briefly did some digging but didn't find anything compelling counter to the McCollum, et. al. paper or supportive of the Stedman, et. al. one. I did notice that Stedman has been cited something like 300 times while McCollum has only been cited 30 times. I'm going to continue digging to see if there's more out there more recent than 2004/5, but for now will cease using MYH16 as an argument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

All attempts to date events in the past require the acceptance of assumptions.

Any proposed age of the universe is based on assumptions.

Anything regarding the past or future -- no matter how recent -- is based on assumptions. Even this exact present moment is based on assumptions.