Evolution

[Zolar V]

At what point during mans evolution did his jaw change?

it would seem to me that our jaw (currently, and from jaw bones i have seen from roman and pre-roman eras) is designed to chew/eat foods that have been cultivated and cut with tools.

Also having 2,500 years worth of data points to chart the evolution of the human jaw bone i would think that it should be pretty easy to define what ~year the jaw bone had teeth that were useful in non cultivated and/or cut foods.

[insane_alien]

we canand do still eat foods that were not cut and cultivated. our jaws work perfectly well at it. maybe not as good at meats as most dedicated carnivores, but we've never been dedicated carnivores in our species history.

 

most apes and monkies have similar styles of jaw bone and you don't see them getting the silverware out now do you?

[jake.com]

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

 

this explains a lot. Start at "History of Man - an Expansion"

[Zolar V]

we canand do still eat foods that were not cut and cultivated. our jaws work perfectly well at it. maybe not as good at meats as most dedicated carnivores, but we've never been dedicated carnivores in our species history.

 

most apes and monkies have similar styles of jaw bone and you don't see them getting the silverware out now do you?

 

Not necessarily, monkeys and apes have enlarged canine's which give the animal the ability to rend and tear flesh from bone and sinews. if we were to attempt the same type of action we would rip our teeth out.

[toastywombel]

Not necessarily, monkeys and apes have enlarged canine's which give the animal the ability to rend and tear flesh from bone and sinews. if we were to attempt the same type of action we would rip our teeth out.

 

Really? We would rip our teeth out? What scientific data do you have to prove that point. I seriously doubt that a human would rip his/her own teeth out in attempting to rip flesh off of a carcus. In-fact I would think a human could easily rip flesh of the bone of a raw carcus.

 

Note: Human bit force is around 150 psi

http://dogfacts.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/national-geographics-dr-brady-barrs-bite-pressure-tests/

[Mr Skeptic]

Anecdotal, but my mom lost a tooth biting a lobster leg.

 

No sane human is going to go about biting large living creatures hard enough to tear flesh. Why? Our teeth are really not well anchored enough for that. Corpses are a completely different matter.

[Zolar V]

Anecdotal, but my mom lost a tooth biting a lobster leg.

 

No sane human is going to go about biting large living creatures hard enough to tear flesh. Why? Our teeth are really not well anchored enough for that. Corpses are a completely different matter.

 

exactly, if we were to go around eating carrion then we would have an increased immunity to bacterial infections. however the human body does not posses the immunities to eat carrion. therefore we would not have eaten carrion, unless it was cooked first. bringing us back to the original statement "it would seem to me that our jaw (currently, and from jaw bones i have seen from roman and pre-roman eras) is designed to chew/eat foods that have been cultivated and cut with tools"

[Moontanman]

Zolar you are making some pretty wild assumptions here, humans can and do eat raw meat from carcases, (haven't you ever eaten raw steak by gnawing it off the bone?) it's rare in modern times but it can be done. Stone tools are more than adequate to cut flesh from bones to bite sized chunks if you insist on bite sized chunks. Humans were cutting up their food way before Roman times and cooking makes meat that is too rotted to eat raw eatable. Your basic premise is totally flawed, humans have been wielding super sharp stone tools and cooking for more than 75,000 years maybe 150,000 years.

[Zolar V]

Zolar you are making some pretty wild assumptions here, humans can and do eat raw meat from carcases, (haven't you ever eaten raw steak by gnawing it off the bone?) it's rare in modern times but it can be done. Stone tools are more than adequate to cut flesh from bones to bite sized chunks if you insist on bite sized chunks. Humans were cutting up their food way before Roman times and cooking makes meat that is too rotted to eat raw eatable. Your basic premise is totally flawed, humans have been wielding super sharp stone tools and cooking for more than 75,000 years maybe 150,000 years.

 

Do we have evidence of said tools? How can we be sure that they are dated correctly and are associated with Homo Sapiens? and no i don't go around gnawing raw meat off of a bone. rather i was assuming that the human jaw is incapable of such action via evidence that ripping flesh from sinew does in fact dislodge human teeth from the jaw bone.

 

Evidence supporting my claim "my dad had a tooth ripped out by eating a sandwich made from dense bread" that dense bread took less force to rip than it would to rend flesh from sinew and bone, thus it is safe to assume that rending flesh from bone and sinew would cause teeth to be ripped out of the human jawbone.

 

+ even in your argument your supporting my claim that indeed the human jawbone was meant to eat cultivated and cut(processed) foods

 

you say super sharp tools, i take it your referring to obsidian implements? if so, then to counter that argument aside from dated items, i would suggest looking at the geological record of eruptions and volcanic activity. what about the humans that evolved away from volcanic activity and had no means to acquire super sharp obsidian? i wouldn't think shale being more common would make anything close to a sharp implement because of it fragility.

 

Besides this, if anything, is off topic, i was simply implying that we could put a date on a certain time period where our jaw evolved into our current jaw.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Zolar V

[Moontanman]

Do we have evidence of said tools? last i heard the only tool fragments we found were dated around 5,000 years ago. and no i don't go around gnawing raw meat off of a bone. rather i was assuming that the human jaw is incapable of such action via evidence that ripping flesh from sinew does in fact dislodge human teeth from the jaw bone.

 

Yes we do Zolar if you were told stone tools only date back 5,000 years you were grossly misinformed. No human teeth are quite tough and capable of ripping flesh from bones but we prefer to do it with knives. Stone knives can be sharper than modern surgical instruments.

 

 

Evidence supporting my claim "my dad had a tooth ripped out by eating a sandwich made from dense bread" that dense bread took less force to rip than it would to rend flesh from sinew and bone, thus it is safe to assume that rending flesh from bone and sinew would cause teeth to be ripped out of the human jawbone.

 

 

Quite possibly "your dad" had weak teeth, old people would have more difficulty but the point is moot, stone tools were available for humans for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

+ even in your argument your supporting my claim that indeed the human jawbone was meant to eat cultivated and cut(processed) foods

 

Again stone tools are more than adequate for cutting up carcases. Grinding grain, roots and tubers.

 

you say super sharp tools, i take it your referring to obsidian implements? if so, then to counter that argument aside from dated items, i would suggest looking at the geological record of eruptions and volcanic activity. what about the humans that evolved away from volcanic activity and had no means to acquire super sharp obsidian? i wouldn't think shale being more common would make anything close to a sharp implement because of it fragility.

 

I suggest you back up this outrageous claim, flint is available in many areas where volcanoes were extinct for millions of years and often washed down rivers far away from volcanoes. Obsidian was the favorite stone tool of choice but even quartz can be used to make stone tools. Why would they be limited to shale, that makes no sense what so ever. Even shards of bone can be used to cut flesh.

 

Besides this, if anything, is off topic, i was simply implying that we could put a date on a certain time period where our jaw evolved into our current jaw.

 

You implication is dead wrong.

[Edtharan]

There are many non human primates that use tools to gather food. There are quite a few groups of Chimpanzees that use stones and wood to smash nuts like a hammer so they can get access to the food inside them. Even their teeth are incapable of bighting through those nuts.

 

What does this mean? Well it could show tool use that goes back to a common ancestor and that is around 5 million years.

 

you say super sharp tools, i take it your referring to obsidian implements? if so, then to counter that argument aside from dated items, i would suggest looking at the geological record of eruptions and volcanic activity. what about the humans that evolved away from volcanic activity and had no means to acquire super sharp obsidian? i wouldn't think shale being more common would make anything close to a sharp implement because of it fragility.

Stone tools are just one form of tool. As I stated above, chimps have been known to use wooden tools, and they work quite well.

 

It is also known that in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic (the stones ages), many tools were actually made from wood, or bone or even antlers. Stone Henge was dug using digging tools made from antlers so stone is just one of many materials used (and survives the passage of time better - which is why we see lots of stone tools compared to other materials).

 

Also, this assumption of yours, that only shale was used where obsidian could not be found, is completely against the evidence and against all intelligence. If a stone is too fragile to be used, and there are other stones that are strong enough, then why would they use the more fragile one? I don't know anyone that stupid (or even know of any tool using animals that stupid).

 

There are many stole tools made of flint and other harder (than shale) materials (and I don't think I have ever heard of a shale tool - but flint tools are well known). Also, it is known that tools were traded among stone age peoples. So even if there was no local stone source good enough for making tools, they could trade for them form groups that did have them.

 

Stone tools are quite durable (they have survived hundreds of thousands of years and would still be usable today if they weren't so valuable - it is using them that damages them). It is therefore possible for them to be traded over long distances and even time.

 

Lastly, stone aged peoples were known to be nomadic or semi-nomadic, which means that even if there was no local source of stone for tools, they could easily have travelled to where there was some, and several groups could have shared these locations (and there is evidence that this did occur and these were used as trading/socialising locations). Even groups of chimps have places like this which indicates that such behaviours could stretch back beyond the origins of modern humans.

 

We also know that Neanderthal also had these behaviours and this gives further evidence that these capabilities goes well back in human evolution.

[Zolar V]

You implication is dead wrong.

 

Really? is it really wrong?? i wonder just how we could use 60,000+ data points over a collective period of 3,00 years to do a statistical analysis of the human jaw bone and its wrong? really? statistical analysis is wrong? all that i was taught in math is dead wrong? wow. i wish i knew what you think.

Quite possibly "your dad" had weak teeth, old people would have more difficulty but the point is moot, stone tools were available for humans for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

 

Again stone tools are more than adequate for cutting up carcases. Grinding grain, roots and tubers.

 

I suggest you back up this outrageous claim, flint is available in many areas where volcanoes were extinct for millions of years and often washed down rivers far away from volcanoes. Obsidian was the favorite stone tool of choice but even quartz can be used to make stone tools. Why would they be limited to shale, that makes no sense what so ever. Even shards of bone can be used to cut flesh.

again this is so far off topic that im not going to even acknowledge it.

were talking about the human jawbone of Homo Sapien. and using the data points over 3000 years just how has it evolved.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There are many non human primates that use tools to gather food. There are quite a few groups of Chimpanzees that use stones and wood to smash nuts like a hammer so they can get access to the food inside them. Even their teeth are incapable of bighting through those nuts.

 

What does this mean? Well it could show tool use that goes back to a common ancestor and that is around 5 million years.

 

 

Stone tools are just one form of tool. As I stated above, chimps have been known to use wooden tools, and they work quite well.

 

It is also known that in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic (the stones ages), many tools were actually made from wood, or bone or even antlers. Stone Henge was dug using digging tools made from antlers so stone is just one of many materials used (and survives the passage of time better - which is why we see lots of stone tools compared to other materials).

 

Also, this assumption of yours, that only shale was used where obsidian could not be found, is completely against the evidence and against all intelligence. If a stone is too fragile to be used, and there are other stones that are strong enough, then why would they use the more fragile one? I don't know anyone that stupid (or even know of any tool using animals that stupid).

 

There are many stole tools made of flint and other harder (than shale) materials (and I don't think I have ever heard of a shale tool - but flint tools are well known). Also, it is known that tools were traded among stone age peoples. So even if there was no local stone source good enough for making tools, they could trade for them form groups that did have them.

 

Stone tools are quite durable (they have survived hundreds of thousands of years and would still be usable today if they weren't so valuable - it is using them that damages them). It is therefore possible for them to be traded over long distances and even time.

 

Lastly, stone aged peoples were known to be nomadic or semi-nomadic, which means that even if there was no local source of stone for tools, they could easily have travelled to where there was some, and several groups could have shared these locations (and there is evidence that this did occur and these were used as trading/socialising locations). Even groups of chimps have places like this which indicates that such behaviours could stretch back beyond the origins of modern humans.

 

We also know that Neanderthal also had these behaviours and this gives further evidence that these capabilities goes well back in human evolution.

1.) were talking about Homo Sapien, not Neanderthal.

2.) we are not discussing the creation and implimentation of tools.

3.) this post is about analyzing the human jaw bones evolution over the past 3,000 years, because of tool use it has its form and function specialized.

[Moontanman]

Really? is it really wrong?? i wonder just how we could use 60,000+ data points over a collective period of 3,00 years to do a statistical analysis of the human jaw bone and its wrong? really? statistical analysis is wrong? all that i was taught in math is dead wrong? wow. i wish i knew what you think.

 

First i happen to be trained in statistical analysis, you are dead wrong, at best you source is cherry picking data, you need to provide the source for this outrageous claim, the human jaw bone has pretty much been the way it is for more than 100,000 years, 3,000 years isn't enough to say we had to have modern cutlery to live. 3,000 years ago humans already had plenty of tools to cut up grind and other wise process food. As we did 100,000 years ago, even before the modern jaw bone hominids had tools to cut up and grind their food. You are not making sense when you argue differently.

 

again this is so far off topic that im not going to even acknowledge it.

 

Of course you're not, it disproves your idea completely.

 

were talking about the human jawbone of Homo Sapien. and using the data points over 3000 years just how has it evolved.

 

Again 3,000 years has seen no appreciable change i the human jaw bone. 3,000 years ago humans were identical to humans today, why do you keep bringing this up?

 

 

1.) were talking about Homo Sapien, not Neanderthal.

2.) we are not discussing the creation and implimentation of tools.

3.) this post is about analyzing the human jaw bones evolution over the past 3,000 years, because of tool use it has its form and function specialized.

 

Neanderthals evolved from a common ancestor with humans, both species had tools more than 150,000 years ago they also had jaw bones that were really not suited to ripping flesh from carcasses.

 

Yes were are discussing the use of tools because you said we have to have them to eat.

 

 

AGAIN, i say 3,000 years ago we were just as human as today, so what is your point?

[toastywombel]

ZolarV, I have a plan and we can find out if the human jaw can really tear flesh.

Find a rabid man.

Provoke him.

Have him bite you.

If what you have said is correct you need not worry, he might bite you but his teeth will just fall out if you jerk your arm away. Make sure to be ready for rabies shots afterwards though .

 

I am just joking obviously. . . But back to the point, humans can tear flesh from bone I am sure.

Haven't you ever seen someone open a beer bottle with their teeth?

Or eat a rare steak?

My dad actually chews on cartilage.

Haven't you ever broke a jaw breaker?

I talked to my mother on the phone last night about this and she told me a story about when a man tried to assault her she tore a chunk of skin out of his arm.

 

This might all be anecdotal but I think that humans can tear flesh from bone.

Edited December 10, 2009 by toastywombel

[Zolar V]

Wow, i think you are completely missing the point to this article.

and yes you are wrong, you can use statistical analysis with 60000 datapoints over 3000 years to model the human jaw evolution.

no we are not talking about neanderthals, no we are not talking aobut tools.

get over it

 

post something useful for a change, instead of just trolling

[Moontanman]

Zolar, why do you assume a large carcass? Humans often prey on small animals. A human is quite capable of eating a small animal raw, even skinning it with your teeth. a rabbit is easy to skin and eat, not very tasty raw but edible. A cooking fire makes any meat easily torn from a carcass, throw a deer carcass on a fire and meat becomes easily torn from the carcass, your whole idea of human teeth and jaws being too weak to function with out modern food processing is just dead wrong. Small animals make a large portion of the diet of primitive humans now, why not then?

 

I think it's more likely that fire allowed the human jaw to evolve into the form it is today by making food softer and easier to eat.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Wow, i think you are completely missing the point to this article.

and yes you are wrong, you can use statistical analysis with 60000 datapoints over 3000 years to model the human jaw evolution.

no we are not talking about neanderthals, no we are not talking aobut tools.

get over it

 

post something useful for a change, instead of just trolling

 

No zolar, not if the human jaw isn't evolving over that time span, troll am i? Report me for trolling then, go for it.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Moontanman
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

I think he was referring to me, but go ahead and report me for trolling too. Did you site this scientific article showing human jaw-bone evolution over the last 3000 years?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hmmm so I was doing some research on this.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=887

 

In this article it states that humans lost their chewing power about 2.4 million years ago. This is because they stopped producing a protein that primates have in their jaws.

 

This lack of protein was first believed to be present in homo-erectus. Even though homo-erectus had a small brain in comparison to homo-sapien, it is believed that this is what allowed for the development of a larger brain.

 

What is interesting though is that this happened 2.4 million years ago, not 3000 years ago. The scientists in this article claims that this is when the human jaw changed from what it was like in our earliest ancestors such as gorillas and chimps.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

 

"Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983)."

 

Here the author is stating small changes noticed in the human jaw, in the fact that it is getting less robust. So ZolarV you are right that the jaw bone has changed because of processed foods, according to this source, but you would have to go back 10,000 years ago to find a 10% difference.

 

However, for the last 100,000-1.1 million years humans have had the same amount of teeth, so as far as drastic changes there are little.

[Zolar V]

Zolar, why do you assume a large carcass? Humans often prey on small animals. A human is quite capable of eating a small animal raw, even skinning it with your teeth. a rabbit is easy to skin and eat, not very tasty raw but edible. A cooking fire makes any meat easily torn from a carcass, throw a deer carcass on a fire and meat becomes easily torn from the carcass, your whole idea of human teeth and jaws being too weak to function with out modern food processing is just dead wrong. Small animals make a large portion of the diet of primitive humans now, why not then?

why do i assume large carcasses? because small animals would not provide enough sustanance for a community of humans.

hence why humans hunted elephants, deer, buffalo and many other large animals.

 

I think it's more likely that fire allowed the human jaw to evolve into the form it is today by making food softer and easier to eat.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

what does that have anything to do with data collected over a timespan of 3000 years about the human jaw? again we are not talking about tools, or for that matter food either. we are talking about the human jaw. (period)

 

No zolar, not if the human jaw isn't evolving over that time span, troll am i? Report me for trolling then, go for it.

 

maybe i should considering thats what you have done on my last few threads. you dont provide any evidence, you attack specific wording and you lead topics into rabbit holes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think he was referring to me, but go ahead and report me for trolling too. Did you site this scientific article showing human jaw-bone evolution over the last 3000 years?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hmmm so I was doing some research on this.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=887

 

In this article it states that humans lost their chewing power about 2.4 million years ago. This is because they stopped producing a protein that primates have in their jaws.

 

This lack of protein was first believed to be present in homo-erectus. Even though homo-erectus had a small brain in comparison to homo-sapien, it is believed that this is what allowed for the development of a larger brain.

 

What is interesting though is that this happened 2.4 million years ago, not 3000 years ago. The scientists in this article claims that this is when the human jaw changed from what it was like in our earliest ancestors such as gorillas and chimps.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

 

"Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983)."

 

Here the author is stating small changes noticed in the human jaw, in the fact that it is getting less robust. So ZolarV you are right that the jaw bone has changed because of processed foods, according to this source, but you would have to go back 10,000 years ago to find a 10% difference.

 

However, for the last 100,000-1.1 million years humans have had the same amount of teeth, so as far as drastic changes there are little.

 

see? thats what i was talking about. thank god someone can actually read a thread to discern the question and post pertinant information on said topic.

[Moontanman]

You got me zolar, I'm a troll, I live to obfuscate your posts. Report me. Thank you toasty, 2.4 million years ago our jaws changed, I appreciate your efforts to show this. I still don't see the relevance of roman era jaw bones and tool use for processed foods since humans have clearly been processing their foods for 100,000's of years.

[toastywombel]

Okay more reasearch:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3tS2MULo5rYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=when+did+human+jaw+bone+evolve&ots=QjwCI42XYN&sig=wjYGkt_8ZlG208FasLhF86TzoPw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

It is a book called uniquely human.

 

The author cites studies of the human jaw bone and the changes it has gone under that allowed for human speech. In his book he states that the human jaw evolved to the way it is today around 200,000 years ago.

 

So, from everything I have looked at the human jaw has not evolved at all within the last 3,000 years (as you said earlier). There have been minor changes within the last 10,000 years, but not evolution. Although there has been a general trend towards smaller jaws in the last 10,000 years certain some people today still have large jaws (hence they still can carry wisdom teeth) and particularly indigenous peoples from Australia.

 

Most of what I have been reading cites that the human jaw evolved to the way it is today around 100,000-200,000 years ago. And was still very similar to how it is today all the way back to 1.8 million years ago.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You got me zolar, I'm a troll, I live to obfuscate your posts. Report me. Thank you toasty, 2.4 million years ago our jaws changed, I appreciate your efforts to show this. I still don't see the relevance of roman era jaw bones and tool use for processed foods since humans have clearly been processing their foods for 100,000's of years.

 

True I was reading some more and according to a BBC article the oldest discovery of human fire controlling/starting techniques were found near Israel and they date back to about 780,000 years ago. Why would the human jaw just start adapting 3000 years ago to processed food, when we have been processing food for over 3/4 of a million years.

 

And the changes I have cited that have happened within the last 100,000 years are only shrinking of the human jaw, which is attributed to natural selection, not evolution (There is a difference). The human jaw, although it is smaller on average has remained exactly the same for 100,000-200,000 years

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another thing ZolarV, the problem I have with the statements you have been making is that you keep talking about the data points charted over the last 3000 years but you have not cited anything to prove that. Not any scientific data or writings. We like to see facts back up statements here.

Edited December 10, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Zolar V]

 

 

True I was reading some more and according to a BBC article the oldest discovery of human fire controlling/starting techniques were found near Israel and they date back to about 780,000 years ago. Why would the human jaw just start adapting 3000 years ago to processed food, when we have been processing food for over 3/4 of a million years.

i did not say it began to adapt, nor did i mention that it should start adapting by that time

And the changes I have cited that have happened within the last 100,000 years are only shrinking of the human jaw, which is attributed to natural selection, not evolution (There is a difference). The human jaw, although it is smaller on average has remained exactly the same for 100,000-200,000 years

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another thing ZolarV, the problem I have with the statements you have been making is that you keep talking about the data points charted over the last 3000 years but you have not cited anything to prove that. Not any scientific data or writings. We like to see facts back up statements here.

 

i was referring to the amount of data points you could acquire from human jaw bones between the present and 3,000 years back and what you could do with them. you say there is no evidence? i give you human skull from a murdered dude last week, a human skull from medieval graveyards, a human skull from Egyptian Pharaohs, A human skull from Phonecian grave yards, a human skull from Greek graveyards, and so on. from all of these you could measure and collect jaw bone data and model it. you may actually be able to see differences within the 3,000 year time frame and you could model human jaw bones from previous times where there are no remains.

from the jaw bone, both real and modeled you could collect varying types of data, such as what types of food they ate.

[toastywombel]

i did not say it began to adapt, nor did i mention that it should start adapting by that time

 

 

i was referring to the amount of data points you could acquire from human jaw bones between the present and 3,000 years back and what you could do with them. you say there is no evidence? i give you human skull from a murdered dude last week, a human skull from medieval graveyards, a human skull from Egyptian Pharaohs, A human skull from Phonecian grave yards, a human skull from Greek graveyards, and so on. from all of these you could measure and collect jaw bone data and model it. you may actually be able to see differences within the 3,000 year time frame and you could model human jaw bones from previous times where there are no remains.

from the jaw bone, both real and modeled you could collect varying types of data, such as what types of food they ate.

 

Yes but from what I read the human jaw bone has not changed at all in the last 3000 years. I thought you were citing something, but you were saying if there was a study of jaw bones and data points taken from those jaw bones, I understand that. There are human remains that have been found though that go back much further than 3000 years ago, I hope you know.

[Zolar V]

Yes but from what I read the human jaw bone has not changed at all in the last 3000 years. I thought you were citing something, but you were saying if there was a study of jaw bones and data points taken from those jaw bones, I understand that. There are human remains that have been found though that go back much further than 3000 years ago, I hope you know.

 

yes, exactly it was more of a question that i did not have an answer to rather than I'm challenging your conceptions of evolution.

yea, I know they do but i have not seen them so i could not say that in my initial post.

no change would still evident in a statistical analysis.

was there some way that my OP was misconstrued as challenging rather than questioning?

[toastywombel]

No I think you op was fine, now that I look back on it I think everything got a little out of hand hopefully I clarified things though.