Finally, tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION

As you will see below, my theory that micro-evolution (gene mutations) can indeed cause macro-evolution is entirely accurate: a gene(micro-evolution) led to smaller, weaker jaws(macro-evolutionary effect) and, ultimately, bigger brains(an improved feature, thus proving that upward evolution can indeed stem from information loss(mutating gene causing weaker jaws) on the gene scale.

By Joseph B. Verrengia
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:21 p.m. ET March 24, 2004

Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains.

Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language.

The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Continued...

The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws.

And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said.

But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods.

Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.”

University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.”

“The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.”

Continued...
Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.”

University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.”

“The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.”

Details of the study
In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract.

Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications.
Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed. But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle.
In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull.
When did this genetic split occur? Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures.

Tangible proof? 😆

No offense inteaded or anything but there is nothing about that even in the proximity of proof. Conjecture is not proof.

😆 You're just jealous, this IS proof, no conjecture. You just have to disagree, even when it makes a complete fool out of you.

Keep believing blindly in your utterly idiotic, illogical arguments...whatever keeps your fantasy, fools paradise real... 💃

There is nothing to be jealous of. As soon as I read that their supposed proof was ape to man (of which it is a fact that there is no evidence for such) I stopped reading.

You stopped reading because you fear you might see the truth! I would suggest that you don't just stop reading based on the subject - what if further on in the article they DO infact proof something? You would not be aware of it!

No, I just dont feel like reading the same stuff ive read over and over. I dont understand what there is for me to fear. I remain objective (while you dont) but the problem lies in the obvious. It is known that there is no proof that man came from ape so why would I be intersted in somebody who uses that as "evidence" for macroevolution?

Please

Please, there IS proof that man came from ape, but obviously a creationist will never admit that.

"Creationist are "pathetic for demanding evidence". "Evidence is unnecessary".

You say this even though you can't provide evidence for your belief in god !Ha-ha! Obviously for you, being a creationist, evidence IS unnecesary as you blindly believe in a god, not supplying evidence. Do you call believing in a god 'objective science'?

You remain objective, but believe in a god, without being able to proof him or providing objective evidence? 🤣 😆 😆

Naturalism and creationism are philosophies. The problem lies in the fact that naturalists try to act as though their philosophy is fact when it is not even close. In fact, it isnt even scientific theory. Why not? Because unlike creationsim, it consistently fails to meet observed scientific evidence.

Dont try to blur lines and dont try to divert from the real issue at hand. Nice try though.

You remain objective, but believe in a god, without being able to proof him or providing objective evidence?

Refer above.

So show me the objective scientific evidence which supports creationism.
And don't try to dodge this one.

You have no willigness to learn though, we have already discovered that you are so biased that you dismissed evidence as having relevance.

Tell me why I should waste the time when you clearly dont want to know anything?

You realy enjoy rolling around in your own idiocy, don't you.

You didnt answer my question.

Also, again Ive asked you numerous times now that we just ignore each other. Your limited knowledge and unwillingness to learn, be objective, etc are just far too annoying for me to deal with.

my theory that micro-evolution (gene mutations) can indeed cause macro-evolution is entirely accurate: a gene(micro-evolution) led to smaller, weaker jaws(macro-evolutionary effect) and, ultimately, bigger brains(an improved feature, thus proving that upward evolution can indeed stem from information loss(mutating gene causing weaker jaws) on the gene scale.

PLEASE READ FURTHER INSIDE THE FIRST POST, clickclick MESSED UP THIS THREAD WITH HIS UTTER IDIOCY.

"Java Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Java Man? 100? 50? 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton? Java Man was reconstructed from a skullcap, thighbone, and 2 molar teeth. Dr. Eugene DuBois found the thighbone 50 feet away from the skullcap, but assumed it was the same individual. After discovering human skulls at the same level near his Java Man discovery, he hid the skulls under the floorboards of his bedroom for 26 years. Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant gibbon."

I really love how people that parade themselves as some kind of elite intellectual throw proof at you that are frauds. Come on man at least get your facts right before you start paradiing around like you know something other people don't.

keep dreaming about java man philO

finch beaks!!!!!!
haha give me a break man
so is a poodle proof of evidence for evolution too man?
Its called adaptation PhilO, there are breeds of dogs that can live in extreme freezing temps and there are dogs that can live in the hottest climates on earth. Now if you switch the dogs in those climates they will be hard pressed to survive. This is a example of adaptation just like finch beaks. They can adapt through different climates but they never turn into another animal.
You can bring all the "proof" to the table you want over evolution but every shred of evidence i have ever heard of has been shot down. If you want to try to post some "proof" feel free to try I am quite confident i can shoot it down for you.
Evolution is a not a fact it is a theory!!!!!
and i don't know why you are so insulting to click click calling him stupid. He seems to have a above average intelligence to me.
Your the guy whos posting a thread of what a fact evolution is when all those great facts are highly questioned. Not to call you an idiot either, you probably just need to do a little more research.
And not to say i know everything on the subject as well, i am learning just as much as everyone else, i just know enough that stating finch beaks as a fact for evolution is a mass of bull dung

there just if you missed my posts in your other threads that were closed down PhilO

"Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant gibbon."

The above was a lie: Look at the biography of the man and you'll see he never confessed as such.

thats all you have to say???? even hypothetically if he didn't confess that, java man is inconclusive but you seemed to be howlering on the roof tops of it being some important finding that proved evolution. sorry bud no such case. and whats this about.
dude and please can you do better than copy and paste of someone elses writings? maybe think for yourself?
I haven't even hear you mention peppered moths yet, isn't that evolutions favorite animal even though thats just another example of adaptation.
just as a side not too you do realize that the dating system scientists have is very inaccurate don't you? Did you know that people took a sample of volcano rock that went off about 100 years ago, they gave it to scientists and they all gave them dating that went back get this......over like 250 million years old or so....hahahahahah dude if you are gonna take the word of these guys when they give you dates but as for me when they are wrong by that much i will pass. Did you ever even come across this info bud or are you just content on taking "facts" from the far extreme side of the argument?