Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: TylerDurden on April 05, 2015, 10:50:46 pm
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3026233/Scientists-reveal-humans-primates-chins.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3026233/Scientists-reveal-humans-primates-chins.html)
This is easily debunked. If cooking got invented c. 2 million years ago, and chins evolved at the same time, then why do Neanderthals not have chins despite having cooked their foods? The same researcher is trying to claim that cooking created bigger human brains, but so far no evidence has ever appeared to support this silly notion.
-
most of the PPL in those photos have bunched up/ narrow jaws which is what Weston Price said seemed to be a consequence of white man's crap food.
-
then why do Neanderthals not have chins despite having cooked their foods?
"Late Neanderthals" developed chins and "a much more modern morphology" (see Condemi, S., Mounier, A., Giunti, P., Lari, M., Caramelli, D., & Longo, L. (2013). Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals? New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy). PLOS ONE, 8(3), e59781. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059781 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059781)) There are multiple possible causes of this. Thanks for the link. Didn't know about this until you shared it.
-
"Late Neanderthals" developed chins and "a much more modern morphology" (see Condemi, S., Mounier, A., Giunti, P., Lari, M., Caramelli, D., & Longo, L. (2013). Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals? New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy). PLOS ONE, 8(3), e59781. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059781 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059781)) There are multiple possible causes of this. Thanks for the link. Didn't know about this until you shared it.
At the very least, we have a far more likely theory, that late-era Neanderthals developed chins due to interbreeding with modern humans whereas the notion that chins were developed c.2,000,000 years ago due to eating cooked foods is disproven due to lack of evidence for cooking.
-
Careful, you're tipping over into argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not proof. As with so many things, more study is needed before solid conclusions can be made.
One possible counter-evidence is that elephants have chin-like forms, though some scientists do not consider them to be true chins. Unfortunately, elephant "chins" also have not been thoroughly studied.
-
Also, afaik, there seems to be no evidence for chins c.2,000,000 years ago(ie homo erectus had no chins). So the two together are enough, no evidence of chins and no evidence of cooking....
Anyway, absence of evidence is a good starting point IF there is widespread evidence for cooking c. 250,000 to 300,000 years ago, yet no solid evidence for before that point.
I know there have been some absurd claims re the invention of cooking but they seem to be connected to natural forest fires and the like, not made by humans. Plus, the Zhoukoudian Caves evidence was discredited by one study due to points made about soil from different eras becoming mixed with others, along with mistaken archaeological findings. It is interesting how a recent study claiming Neanderthals played music was found to be faulty and that hyenas had merely punctured a bone while eating to form the so-called instrument.
-
Anyway, absence of evidence is a good starting point IF
Yes, absence of evidence doesn't prove anything, it just raises questions, and questions are the starting point of scientific inquiry.
It is interesting how a recent study claiming Neanderthals played music was found to be faulty and that hyenas had merely punctured a bone while eating to form the so-called instrument.
Yes, and this further supports not jumping to conclusions prematurely, whether pro or con. It's a very new hypothesis which will need to be examined and tested.
Even if they find plenty of evidence linking chins to cooking, we still won't know precisely how well adapted humans are to cooking (or lack thereof) and the debates would thus continue even then.
-
Even so, the explanation re neanderthals mixing with humans being responsible for chins is at the moment way more likely than the notion that cooking gave rise to chins since a) the evidence in favour of cooking arising c.2,000,000 years ago is nonexistent so far and b) plentiful evidence(ie =no absence of evidence) exists for cooking having been invented c.250,000 to 300,000 years ago. Now if the researcher had indeed claimed that cooking and chins had started happening only c.250,000 years ago, then one could say that there were 2 valid competing theories, but this is not the case.
-
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-do-humans-have-chins-15140492/?no-ist (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-do-humans-have-chins-15140492/?no-ist)
When a perplexing question arises, I consult the orical, and ask google, Why did humans evolve chins.... Many interesting theories came up, and it seems that there may have been multiple factors involved, which gave chins some functional role, and once established in humans sexual selection may have been responsible for the rest.
Well pronounced Chins are sexy, thats why the men in romance novels look like this. https://www.google.com/search?q=fabio+pictures&safe=off&espv=2&es_sm=122&biw=1242&bih=607&tbm=isch&imgil=o2iXDCjBuFSl8M%253A%253B9nPm_ilvw3T7lM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.hats-n-rabbits.com%25252F2011%25252F05%25252Ffabio-and-goose.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=o2iXDCjBuFSl8M%253A%252C9nPm_ilvw3T7lM%252C_&usg=__bw-DN3PcGKzf3cDhnMtJWR_Y8uk%3D&ved=0CD8Qyjc&ei=LEYjVcGUIIOsyASj9oGgAQ (https://www.google.com/search?q=fabio+pictures&safe=off&espv=2&es_sm=122&biw=1242&bih=607&tbm=isch&imgil=o2iXDCjBuFSl8M%253A%253B9nPm_ilvw3T7lM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.hats-n-rabbits.com%25252F2011%25252F05%25252Ffabio-and-goose.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=o2iXDCjBuFSl8M%253A%252C9nPm_ilvw3T7lM%252C_&usg=__bw-DN3PcGKzf3cDhnMtJWR_Y8uk%3D&ved=0CD8Qyjc&ei=LEYjVcGUIIOsyASj9oGgAQ)
-
Tyler, why do you even bother posting stuff from Wrangham? Nobody actually pays attention to him, for obvious reasons. Anthropology isn't even his field, and his methodology is beyond sloppy. Good anthropologists know this. He's a fucking joke.
-
Tyler, why do you even bother posting stuff from Wrangham? Nobody actually pays attention to him, for obvious reasons. Anthropology isn't even his field, and his methodology is beyond sloppy. Good anthropologists know this. He's a fucking joke.
Yes, good anthropologists consider him a joke, but the media unfortunately lionise him and report his claims as being 100% fact. There is also a bias. People constantly try to justify cooking as it is one of the few things that sets humans apart from animals. It is very difficult for people to accept that cooking is harmful as it has been around for so long and "so many billions of people supposedly cannot be wrong".
I remember the laughable claims made by Von Daeniken about ancient astronauts. However, my father on one of his trips to America, noticed how, when one tour-guide mentioned Von Daeniken, the rest of the Americans on the bus reverently shouted out "Chariots of the Gods". I even encountered fellow pupils at school who thoroughly believed this evidence-free rubbish.So, we do need to debunk Wrangham or the rest of his ilk, as when nonsense is constantly repeated , people start believing in it. Besides, we back our claims with scientific evidence, whereas Aajonus and his ilk just relied on faith/belief to get people to trust in RVAF diets.
-
In Tyler's defense, the researcher in the article is not Wrangham, it's James Pampush of the University of Florida, and he IS an anthropologist.
Tyler and I also already discussed that other possible explanations for chins have been posited beyond cooking and some of them were mentioned in the original article, including sexual selection.
Good science includes looking for and considering examples that don't fit one's hypothesis. Avoiding searching for counter-evidence can contribute to confirmation bias. So I welcome open-minded inquiry. We don't want the forum to be a circle jerk, do we? :) I understand that trolls are not fun, so it's of course a balancing act.
I remember the laughable claims made by Von Daeniken about ancient astronauts. However, my father on one of his trips to America, noticed how, when one tour-guide mentioned Von Daeniken, the rest of the Americans on the bus reverently shouted out "Chariots of the Gods". I even encountered fellow pupils at school who thoroughly believed this evidence-free rubbish.So, we do need to debunk Wrangham or the rest of his ilk, as when nonsense is constantly repeated , people start believing in it. Besides, we back our claims with scientific evidence, whereas Aajonus and his ilk just relied on faith/belief to get people to trust in RVAF diets.
lol I remember that movie, and another very popular 1970's American movie claimed that Noah's Ark was on Mount Ararat. IIRC, it turned out to be just big rock formations. lol Yes, true science requires evidence and does not rely on faith.
-
I swear all the time online but even I find usage of that term appalling. Do groups of men even actually do this in private? God almighty. Phew, I checked online and I now see that there is a standard alternate meaning to the term which is used to describe pointless politicians' discussions and the like.
-
Nobody without an axe to grind could look at the fossil record and assume that cooking caused larger brains.
-
Phew, I checked online and I now see that there is a standard alternate meaning to the term which is used to describe pointless politicians' discussions and the like.
lol, yup, in forums and blogs it basically means a forum or blog where dissension, negative reports, skeptical inquiry and such are not allowed or are strongly discouraged and a bunch of yes-men/sheeple engage in back-slapping, high-fiving, sycophancy, ... (such as in the ZIOH and 30BAD forums).
-
lol, yup, in forums and blogs it basically means a forum or blog where dissension, negative reports, skeptical inquiry and such are not allowed or are strongly discouraged and a bunch of yes-men/sheeple engage in back-slapping, high-fiving, sycophancy, ... (such as in the ZIOH and 30BAD forums).
Man, why you got to mention that second forum? Fuck him.