Scientists Show We've Been Losing Face For 10,000 Years

The Times (UK) ^ | 11-20-2005 | Jonathan Leake

[furball4paws]

Midnight is too early in the day for that thing.

OW!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

It would be a comfort for the poor dears to have a day room to call their own. We could even pad it. And hire Nurse Ratchet to hand out the meds.

"EXCELLENT!"

[furball4paws]

There are also other factors playing here. A lot of work has been done on facial symmetry and other factors.

Here's a link to a recent paper which will lead you to more studies if you wish.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10535106&dopt=Abstract

Bottom line: men appear to like symmetrical faces in women as do women, but other factors also come into play (cheekbones and jaws). We all know people that we find "striking" - unforgettable faces. They are usually asymmetrical. But most when asked who'd they like to "get to know better" (less sexual) will choose a much more symmetrical face.

So Mamzelle might be right about the sweet baby face in women, but women still seem to prefer "rougher" faces. Lots of factors in play here.

[longshadow]

Clearly a couple of evolutionists fraudulently inflated the Creationist vote count knowing that they would be caught in a deliberate effort to try and discredit the honourable, always-honest creationist camp.

The Anti-Evos might well have tried to float that notion, but for Godel's wise inclusion of the IP addresses (minus the last three digits) of the two offending voters in the poll. While he didn't reveal their identities publicly, he did do so privately. It was two of the more notorious, if not infamous, anti-Evo posters on FR at the time.

[Dimensio]

Gosh, dimensio--how far back do I have to go in your posting history to find any interest in FR other than evo-fanaticism and athiesm threads?

Do you have a rational argument to make or are you just going to keep ranting and raving?

[Dimensio]

Neither "honey" nor "child" appear in post #257. If you're going to raise a point, try to make it factual.

[Mamzelle]

Having a busy day, are we?

[Dimensio]

Having a busy day, are we?

Non-sequitur. I asked what was condescending about post #257. You replied with an explanation that is clearly not applicable to post #257. Trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong isn't going to make you look better off.

[Ichneumon]

[You'd be amazed at how many evobots have similar histories. It even makes me wonder if there are are just a few posters with multiple "posting personas" to make their numbers look more significant.]

I've been wondering about this for years.

Why is paranoia such a common trait among anti-evolutionists?

[Mamzelle]

People are invisible on the internet.

I found one! Found it! After scrolling through page after page of your posts--a dreary, dreary business, I found a non-evo/crevo post on 11/11.

You know, not many people take Pat Robertson all that seriously. You need to get over him.

[Question_Assumptions]

Seems to carry a hint of Lamarkian Evolution.

Yeah, a lot of articles about evolution are sloppy that way and seem to suggest that the environment causes mutations. Mutations happen at random. They are retained because they are either beneficial or perhaps simply not harmful. While a smaller face might have become less harmful in an agricultural setting, that doesn't really explain why it would be better than the bigger face, which is what you need for replacement -- the one has to be superior to the other.

I think there might be a better explanation, though. I've heard it argued that human beings retain a lot more juvenile traits into adulthood than apes do, much as domestic animals carry more juvenile traits into adulthood. Further, part of what differentiates dog breeds, in both look and temperment, is determined by what parts of their physical or mental development is stunted. It's entirely possible that human development has become more stunted and that we've retained more juvenile traits into adulthood because those traits make us smarter or, like domestic animals, more sociable in larger settlements. Perhaps it could ultimately explain the Baby Boomer desire to never grow up.

[Dimensio]

After scrolling through page after page of your posts--a dreary, dreary business,

Well, have fun digging up my posting history. You'll find that I had a slightly liberal-ish bent in late 2001, but I've hardened up and come to my senses since then. Not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution, but I understand your need to compeltely change the subject away from the topic at hand when you're totally and completely wrong when it comes to matters of science and instead work on trashing people who clearly are better educated than you.

[Mamzelle]

Does that mean you have a law degree?

[longshadow]

Festival of the Paranoid Stalker placemarker

[Ichneumon]

Gosh, dimensio--how far back do I have to go in your posting history to find any interest in FR other than evo-fanaticism and athiesm threads? I kept loading up "more posts" and got too bored to continue. You'd be amazed at how many evobots have similar histories.

Mamzelle lies about yet another Freeper, Film at Eleven...

Gosh, Mam, in order to find Dimensio posting on "other than evo-fanaticism and athiesm threads", we have to go *allll* the way back to... Yesterday. He posted on a Cindy Sheehan thread.

That took me thirty seconds to find. What's *your* excuse?

Lying about how you went back "multiple pages" in his posting history and didn't find anything only reveals, yet again, your gross dishonesty.

Furthermore, the ID/evolution controversy has been front-page news for weeks now, thanks to the Dover trial, so it's extremely disingenuous of you to try to pretend that there's something "suspicious" about the fact that some folks have posted a lot on that topic recently. It's the very epitome of "News and Current Events", which is the primary focus of this forum.

[Mamzelle]

Oh, Ichneumon, hon, child--

I read through page after page of Dimensio's posts--it's quite possible I missed ONE. Go look for yourself and add up them li'l numbers and send 'em to me in biiiiig fonts.

Hon.

[Pablo64]

Sorry if I missed the humorous intention of your post. I try to stay away from the crevo threads but sometimes I just can't help myself and I go there anyway. As you can probably surmise, I don't think all that much of the theory of evolution. I'm glad that you at least still call it a theory.

[Pablo64]

""we won't have faces at all"
Yeah but we will still have teeth!"

LOL! We'll need some extra pockets to carry them in, perhaps?

[Dimensio]

I do admit to hyperfocusing on ID/evolution discussions moreso than other discussions here on FR. What's the point of going into a discussion about idiotic liberal policies (er, that's redundant), gun control, immigration issues or other topics on which there is little contention and shouting "Me too!" like I'm on AOL and it's still 1995?

Still, I find it interesting that Mamzelle is so utterly obsessed with me, as though digging up dirt on me would somehow amount to evidence against the theory of evolution. Either that or Mamzelle realises that he or she has no actual arguments against the topic at hand so trashing me is the only way to justify continued posts.

[Mamzelle]

I'll let ya'll have the last word--but you really ought to look around FR more. Live a little.