Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time Changes Modern Human's Face
BBC ^ | 1-25-2006 | Rebecca Morelle

Posted on 01/25/2006 8:52:48 AM PST by blam

Time changes modern human's face

By Rebecca Morelle
BBC News science reporter

Our ancestors had more prominent features but lower foreheads

Researchers have found that the shape of the human skull has changed significantly over the past 650 years.

Modern people possess less prominent features but higher foreheads than our medieval ancestors.

Writing in the British Dental Journal, the team took careful measurements of groups of skulls spanning across 30 generations.

The scientists said the differences between past and present skull shapes were "striking".

Plague victims

The team used radiographic films of skulls to record extensive measurements taken by a computer.

They looked at 30 skulls dating from the mid-14th Century. They had come from the unlucky victims of the plague. The skulls had been excavated from plague pits in the 1980s in London.

Another 54 skulls examined by the team were recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose which sank off the south coast of England in 1545.

All the skulls were compared with 31 recent orthodontic records from the School of Dentistry in Birmingham.

"This new research shows how bones... can provide more knowledge to the scientific community, and ultimately the public"

Professor Robert Foley, Cambridge University The two principal differences discovered were that our ancestors had more prominent features, but their cranial vault - the distance measured from the eyes to the top of the skull - was smaller.

Dr Peter Rock, lead author of the study and director of orthodontistry at Birmingham University, told the BBC News website: "The astonishing finding is the increased cranial vault heights.

"The increase is very considerable. For example, the vault height of the plague skulls were 80mm, and the modern ones were 95mm - that's in the order of 20% bigger, which is really rather a lot."

He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages.

Repatriating bones

The study of human remains has previously fallen into controversy, and a report commissioned by the UK government called for human remains to be repatriated where possible.

The ancient skulls used in this study, from which the radiographic films were taken, have either been reburied or are now housed in museums.

Professor Robert Foley is director of the Leverhulme Centre for Evolutionary Studies at Cambridge University, and sat on a government working group which has drawn up guidelines on working with human remains.

"The study of human remains can provide vital information about our past. There is a huge interest in our biological past - both from an evolutionary and a historical point of view - and research into human bones can tell us a great deal," he said.

"This new research shows how bones, and even the records of bones, can provide more knowledge to the scientific community, and ultimately the public."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: changes; face; godsgravesglyphs; humans; maryrose; modern; plague; time
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
To: muawiyah
I thought they'd given up on the idea that plant species were comparable to animal species several years back.

Who told you this?

In fact, there's even debate of what constitutes "a plant" ~ is it the flower, the leaves, the woody stem, etc.

If you don't know what defines a plant, why not look it up?.

That's why I'm sticking with my own, and Darwin's, understanding of species ~ that you can produce fertile offspring.

Except that, as Darwin's own theory predicted, the line becomes blurred when it comes to speciation. You can have a population of organisms from group B that are able to produce viable offspring with organisms from group A or C, yet groups A and C together cannot produce viable offspring. How do you draw a distinction in that case?

That's really for another discussion. This article is about human skull measurements, and I'm wondering if someone more knowledgable in this particular field of study can tell me if the sampling size is statistically meaningful.
41 posted on 01/25/2006 10:26:05 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I've put an essay about speciation on my homepage, so I don't have to keep explaining it in each new thread:

Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

42 posted on 01/25/2006 10:26:16 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Hey, the discussion was about a CHANGE IN SKULL MEASUREMENTS, not about human skull size. Another poster suggested we might have a "different species" due to the differences.

This can be tested you know.

I think it's just a case of a variety within a single species being replaced by a different, and already known, variety!

43 posted on 01/25/2006 10:28:02 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Justification for the loss of wisdom teeth.....no room for them as lower jaw becomes smaller and sits directly under the upper jaw as opposed to a more posterior placement in other primates.


44 posted on 01/25/2006 10:30:38 AM PST by stanz (Those who don't believe in evolution should go jump off the flat edge of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
The issue of how we might define plant species is still on the table. Through clever breeding practices we can pretty nearly relocate a gene from one plant species into what we thougth of as a totally different plant species. We can shortcircuit the process with direct cutting and splicing of genetic material.

Animals are not dealt with as readily.

45 posted on 01/25/2006 10:30:50 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
IOW, the skulls from 650 years ago are noticeably intermediate between truly modern and, say, Cro-Magnons from 12,000 years ago. But "Where o where are the transitionals?" the creos ask.
46 posted on 01/25/2006 10:36:48 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Another poster suggested we might have a "different species" due to the differences.

That particular poster was attempting to sarcastically attack evolution (though the poster was instead merely attacking a strawman).
47 posted on 01/25/2006 10:40:10 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
" Quite possibly as examples of "transitional fossils"."

Yup. As I like to point out, If we were to measure all the human features on earth today (all Modern Humans), the range of those measurements would easily include Neanderthals and even more archaic humans. We are one human species and we are all still here in bits and pieces all over the globe.

48 posted on 01/25/2006 10:42:29 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

"The British Dental Journal?!"

Could almost qualify as an oxymoron.


49 posted on 01/25/2006 10:44:51 AM PST by toddlintown (Lennon takes six bullets to the chest, Yoko is standing right next to him and not one f'ing bullet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drawsing
"What does he mean by "mental capacity"? Does he mean the volume of information storage capacity? If he means level of intelligence (We are smarter now!) then the evidence from ancient history does not support this."

I've seen studies that equate brain size with IQ. Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do, did they have a higher IQ?

50 posted on 01/25/2006 10:46:40 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


51 posted on 01/25/2006 10:47:00 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Dimensio; muawiyah
This is your brain on Creationism?

This article is about human skull measurements, and I'm wondering if someone more knowledgable in this particular field of study can tell me if the sampling size is statistically meaningful. - (Dimensio)

To: Dimensio
Hey, the discussion was about a CHANGE IN SKULL MEASUREMENTS, not about human skull size - (muawiyah)

52 posted on 01/25/2006 10:53:36 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stormlead
"Modern Europe and modern England are all inevitably a mix of many diffferent genetic groups (Celts, Franks, Goths, etc, not to mention more recent immigrants). Why couldn't that be behind the differences?"

I can't disagree.

English And Welsh Are Races Apart


53 posted on 01/25/2006 10:53:43 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Not bad. But it looks more like a general cognitive collapse, rather than mere creationism.


54 posted on 01/25/2006 10:56:02 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: blam

Baseball caps, the answer is always baseball caps.


55 posted on 01/25/2006 10:58:22 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"I'm not low-browed ... I'm just degenerated."

I've actually been accused of being a low-brow degenerate before.

56 posted on 01/25/2006 11:03:15 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

LOL! And BIG HAIR for women!


57 posted on 01/25/2006 11:04:15 AM PST by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Well, cr#p. There goes another perfectly good thread. Thanks for turning it into a foodfight.


58 posted on 01/25/2006 11:07:18 AM PST by Richard Kimball (Look, Daddy! Teacher says every time a Kennedy talks, a Republican gets a house seat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blam

I have some photos of Spanish ancestors from the early-to-mid-1800s and some pencil sketches/charcoal relief of those from the early 1700s to late 1700s. They all have high foreheads with just one exception and he had a low forehead and big nose. (Gee, if you're paying someone to do your pencil sketch, why not pay him extra to give you a nice high forehead and smaller nose?)


59 posted on 01/25/2006 11:07:39 AM PST by hispanarepublicana (Chuck Cooperstein is a tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
No, Devolution:


60 posted on 01/25/2006 11:11:03 AM PST by hadrian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson