Averaged female faces across Europe

Female Faces

Here’s a cool slide that was shown during the Ancestral Health Symposium. It’s the average of many female faces from different countries in Europe.

As you can see an average face tends to be beautiful, in every country. But that’s not the point that this slide was supposed to make. This is evolution at work.

All these women have common ancestors, but a few thousand years of semi-isolation has led to a divergence of their genetic averages. Continuing isolation would eventually lead to these people diverging into different species of humans. I guess that would take hundreds of thousands of years of isolation though. Not likely to ever happen.

Another piece of information from the conference: Only 14% of the American population completely believes in evolution. If you happen to belong to the other 86%, then feel free to make up another story about the faces.


Do you want to see average female faces from across the world? Here’s a bigger and better-quality picture.

Update august 19

WOW! A huge number of people are reading this post as it just went viral on Reddit. I decided to do an update.

If the women at the top demonstrate the difference after a few thousand years of divergence, what would happen after tens of thousands of years?


Average female faces across the world

Tens of Thousands of Years of Evolution

This is the result of roughly 40,000 years of evolution in semi-isolation.

What kind of difference can result from millions of years of genetic divergence? Here’s an example:

Distant cousins


This is a chimpanzee and a human – distant relatives. Our last common ancestors lived around 5 million years ago, maybe somewhat more.

How will humans evolve in the next five million years? Nobody knows.


Do you want great teeth? Eat Paleo

Ancestral health, obesity and smurfs

1 2 3


  1. David Ferguson
    Could it not just reflect 'average' carb consumption, as higher carb consumption leads to longer thinner faces and dental crowding etc.? (i.e. Weston Price).
  2. GrannyMumantoog
    The main thing that struck me in those photos was that they look so much alike they could be sisters, which also scores a point for evolution!
    Not sure that 14% report is accurate...based on what data? I'm American and everyone I know believes in evolution and thinks crackpot right wingers are nuts! They may seem to be a larger % because they're the ones that make the news!
    Reply: #3
  3. Andrew
    You must not live in the midwest. Where I live most everyone rejects it because "you would have to be stupid to believe we came from monkeys" and "its just a theory." A lot of people in my area homeschool their kids so they can avoid teaching of "the liberal propaganda" such as evolution.
  4. Pam
    That is not Darwinian evolution/ macro evolution. It is merely micro-evolution, as in the peppered moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. Micro-Evolution is a fact and I don't know anyone who does not believe in it, even among fundamentalist Christians. But the pepper moths and other kinds of micro evolution of changes in species due to external circumstances is a far
    cry from one species turning into another ie. lizards turning into birds.
    Replies: #7, #11
  5. Richard A.
    Diet, which would be an environmental factor, probably has a lot to do with the shape of faces.
  6. Robert
    As a non-Christian I can't help but chuckle at how almost every opportunity is taken to crap on them by a group of people calling themselves the tolerant ones.

    You can call them nutty right wingers, buy might I remind you that its those nutty left wingers who are wanting to ban fats, sodium and other things that their high-carb/Big pharma backers are preaching to them.

    Is it nutty right wingers pushing vegetarian "Meatless Mondays" in the state of California on public school children?

    It would be nice if people could tone down their smugness a tad and agree that it is okay to disagree without getting into name calling and labels.

    Replies: #18, #57, #111
  7. Anonymous
    Modern animals don't turn into other modern animals, and whatever preacher told you they should was lying. A crocodile turning into a duck would disprove evolution. Lizards also don't turn into birds. Evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals.

    Rather, the crocodile and the duck share a common ancestor. The archosaurs are a clade basal to both birds and crocodilians. The population of archosaurs developed different traits which each helped suit them to the environments in different ways. As these changes became exaggerated over many generations, there were then two types of archosaurs. One of these is Crurotarsi, recognizable by genetic evidence of paternity and fossil evidence of homology. Members of Crurotarsi have specialized articulation between crus and tarsus, specifically between the fibula and calcaneum, with a hemicylindrical condyle on the calcaneum articulating against the fibula. Crurotarsis are still archosaurs! They never became a different kind of thing, they just ALSO became Crurotarsi. On the other side, there is Avemetatarsali, also recognizable by genetic evidence and fossil homology. Members of Avemetatarsali develop more birdlike footprints instead. They are still archosaurs! You never outgrow your ancestry. This means that birds ARE STILL dinosaurs, and men STILL ARE apes and STILL ARE monkeys.

    Each of these terms has a meaning, and provably applies to us today. While this is a list of numerous stages we have been and still are, this is by no means our full phylogeny:
    Cellular, Eukaryote, Unicont, Opisthocont, Holozoan, Filozoan, Animal, Eumetazoan, Bilateral, Deuterostome, Chordate, Craniate, Vertebrate, Gnathostome, Eugnathostome, Teleostome, Tetrapod, Amniote, Synapsid, Eupelycosaur, Sphenocodont, Therapsid, Eutherapsid, Neotherapsid, Theriodont, Eutheriodont, Cytodont, Mammaliform, Mammal, Theriiform, Holotheric, Cladotheric, Zatheric, Tribosphend, Theric, Eutheric, Placental, Boreoeutheric, Euarchontoglire, Euarchont, Primate, Haplorhin, Simiiform, Anthropoid, Catarrhin, Hominoid, Hominid, Hominina, Homo, Sapiens.

  8. Mike
    Hi Doc,

    I don't disbelieve in evolution, but may I, as you put it, "make up another story about the faces" ?

    How if I suggest that it is possible that epigenetics may also be playing a part? People like Vilhjalmur Stefansson and Weston Price were showing a relationship between dentition, skull shape, the development of the face and diet a VERY long time ago now.

    Francis Pottenger did something similar for cats.

    And more recently Dr. Cate Shanahan has updated the Weston Price analysis and expressed something similar, using the notion of Marquardt Masks.

    It certainly seems to me that this wouldn't be something to be dismissed without even a look at the evidence and the arguments.

    Stefansson comments in "The Fat of the Land":

    "Among the human skeletons housed in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, I found a sizeable lot of remains dug up by Stefansson and Hastings in 1905 from certain mediaeval cemeteries in Iceland. I was immediately fascinated by these Icelandic skulls, because of the perfection of their teeth and because they showed certain other features —palatine and mandibular tori, thickened tympanic plates, gable-shaped vaults—that were strongly reminiscent of Eskimo crania."

    That seems interesting and suggestive to me at any rate.

  9. David Ferguson
    Exactly, so, Mike. While the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, I am not so sure that the averaged faces in the post is the best exemplar of evolution. Diet is an alternative hypothesis for the (smallish) differences. Genetic drift may also be a factor. Do you have a reference for Shanahan?
  10. Ken Foster
    If you want to remain credible in the field of diet and food then you should stay far from the "theory" of evolution. You do not want to alienate the 80% of your American followers who would suddenly begin to question your reliability on the pure science of LCHF.
  11. JAUS
    Macro evolution and micro evolution is the same thing, the only difference is time. BTW there are plenty of fossil and DNA evidence of evolution.


    All dinosaurs did not die out, they still live among us as birds. There were once dinosaurs with feathers and since only birds have feathers means that they a descended from dinosaurs.

  12. Mike M
    As an American living in the South I can verify that a whole lot of people don't "believe" in evolution.

    Of course, what they call "evolution" isn't anything close to the actual Theory of Evolution. What they call "evolution" is whatever their fundamentalist preacher tells them it is.

    There is absolutely no arguing with them, either. They know what they know. Doesn't matter if they're literally standing on a MOUNTAIN of evidence (the fossil record) or hearing about how new genetic technology demonstrates the exact kind of common ancestry biologists have been pointing out for decades -- they don't believe it.

    For American fundamentalists the Theory of Evolution is lie being spread by a vast conspiracy of scientists who want to turn us all communist.

    Hell, there is even a US CONGRESSMAN from the state of Georgia (Paul Broun) who calls evolution a lie "straight from the pit of hell." And guess what? He is a medical doctor. Not enough for you? He sits on the House Science Committee.

  13. Andreas Barbiero
    If you think this is evolution, you do not understand evolution. This is an example of genetics, and a rather inconsequential one at that. If you average a large number of faces together, they will naturally resemble another fairly regional selection of averaged faces. Mathematical normalization of a set. Take a wide enough sample and faces from any region, anywhere in the world will look similar. Make it large enough and racial differences will be sublimated into an amalgam.
    Replies: #16, #31
  14. JAUS
    Evolution changes from every generation otherwise the children would be identical to their parents. Evolution is so slow that every child is the same species as it's parents, but if you look back in time far enough that will change.

    Most creationists have no idea what evolution is. They actually think that it means that one species gives birth to another. That kind of reasoning is at kindergarden level. It's both tragical and comical that grown ups in USA can be that ignorant.

    To doubt evolution is at same level as believing that the earth is flat.

  15. Robert
    As one on here said..

    "There is absolutely no arguing with them, either. They know what they know. Doesn't matter if they're literally standing on a MOUNTAIN of evidence (the fossil record) or hearing about how new genetic technology demonstrates the exact kind of common ancestry biologists have been pointing out for decades -- they don't believe it."

    Same can be said for global warming, flat earth eco-Marxists. You can show them all the data and the do not care. They can be freezing their ass off and its all because of global warming...uh, er, wait, what are we calling it now? Oh yeah... climate change.

    Pick your heresy.

  16. Kevin
    Hey Andreas, we're not looking at only the similarities, we're looking at the differences as well. Phenotypic variations are easy to observe and to typify between highly divergent populations (Asian vs. Hispanic for instance). But they are less obvious and more difficult to describe between divergent populations within the same culture (Southern Hispanic vs. Northern Hispanic). This averaging technique is indeed prone to selection bias, you're spot on with that observation. But when used correctly it can allow us to see those fine grained variations between closely related geographically separated populations more easily. The study of facial variation in phenotypes has always been a part of the study of population genetics. That's evolution baby.
  17. Kevin
    Pam, you've been fed some false information. Microevolution is as much a part of Darwinian evolution as macroevolution. The difference between the two is a question of scope. Microevolution is defined as change in allele frequency below the species level. Macroevolution is defined as change in allele frequency above the species level. Furthermore, species do not "turn into" other species. Lizards never turned into birds, rather birds and reptiles share a common ancestor. There are several ways speciation can occur, but for the most part new species come about when divergent populations over many generations accumulate traits, via the natural selection of random mutations, to best compete and survive in their respective environments. Eventually enough genetic differentiation will accumulate that the two populations will no longer be able to interbreed. By (one) definition they are now two separate species. Larger phenotypic changes occur more rapidly once genetic mixing ends. Please look up "ring species" for example of fine-grained evolution and the real dividing line between species.
  18. Kevin
    Hey Robert, maybe you should focus on the science rather than the pop-culture surrounding global warming. You're going to get a multitude of opinions and weird (mostly false) rationales for radical economic and social change if your knowledge on the matter comes from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Al Gore. But if you look up the facts global average temperatures are rising at a rate of about 0.2 - 0.3 degrees (F) per decade when all other factors are taken into consideration, and that rate is increasing. These facts are incontrovertible. This means very little for you and me, initially. Despite fears of rising ocean levels and increasingly strong storms, the fact is we have the technology to cope. Humanity will be fine. But the other 8.7 million species on the planet are not as resilient. Visit PLoS One and read hundreds of studies of how rapid climate change has already had a negative impact on the health of many species. It's up to you if you want to be part of the social and economic changes that will help reverse humanity's impact on the Earth's health. But don't be that guy who denies global warming because he hasn't bothered looking at the science.
    Reply: #53
  19. Robert
    Kevin, it would be nice if we could have debates on the issue, but it will never happen. To much of a religion and source of income for many.
  20. J
    "If you happen to belong to the other 86%, then feel free to make up another story about the faces."

    And then kindly remove yourself from the gene pool. Religious extremists that deny evolution and global warming, and hate gay people and abortion, are killing the USA and working against the rest of the human race. Christianity&Islam, two words for the same kind of mind cancer. Dead weight on the human species. They want to stop anyone from stopping global warming or religious warfare. They want to go to their afterlife so bad they're willing to see the whole species dead! They are insane and need to be locked up.

    Replies: #23, #24
  21. Mike M
    Robert: "...it would be nice if we could have debates on the issue, but it will never happen. To much of a religion and source of income for many."

    You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. All, and I mean ALL of what you think you know that "debunks" climate change was paid for and disseminated by people who stand to lose money if we decide to combat climate change.

    Seriously man, it's like it's the 1950s and you're parroting "research" from Phillip Morris that says smoking is perfectly fine.


  22. cave horse
    In nutrition, climatology, and every other field of human endeavor: Science is God until it conflicts with your preconceived notions, personal prejudices, and financial incentives.
  23. Terry
    I agree, but lets enjoy life whitest we still can in 20-30 years time muslims will plunge whole of civilization into another dark ages. Christians did that in Europe 1500 years ago and it lasted for +- 1000 years, when muslims will take over it is probable that humanity will never recover and it will be 1000 times worst what christians did.
  24. Wade Henderson
    "They are insane and need to be locked up."

    Looks like they aren't the only ones who need to be locked up

  25. Xaverius
    Granny, it's true. Naturalistic Evolution is 14%. 49% believes in theistic evolution and 37% believes in creationism.
  26. brianna
    QUOTE Only 14% of the American population completely believes in evolution. If you happen to belong to the other 86%, "then feel free to MAKE UP another story about the faces".

    WOW... didnt realise you need to believe in evolution to do LCHF. This makes me so sad, to disregard other peoples beliefs. Christians dont just "make up" stories.. I will not be following your articles anymore. Evolution like creationism is a theory and you should discredit yourself by being bias to one theory and than slam another by a ruthless comment, when the only thing that stastic tells you is that a large number of your followers may have alternate beliefs to yours.
    God bless, I hope next time you do not turn away you readers for lack of discretion..

    Replies: #27, #28, #32, #49
  27. Impressed you're willing to post
    I suggest you look in to the definition of a scientific theory as it has a VASTLY different meaning than a "theory" like creationism. In no way shape or form could creationism ever rank in as more than a hypothesis in any reputable scientific community, and it is immediately discredited by pretty much every other piece of evidence we have observed as a species in that past couple centuries. The evidence for evolution, the big bang, and pretty much everything we have come to know in the past century is almost a direct contradiction to the ridiculous fiction that is the old testament. You can continue to live in your fantasy world, but it is impossible for you to not recognize that it is in direct contradiction to the observable universe the rest of us are living in.
  28. Francois

    Doc Eenfeldt did not mean to be arrogant towards your faith. Try to express what you think in a Swedish half as good as is his English and you will measure the difficulty of expressing ideas and speaking a language that is not your mother tongue). Yes, some people did say some things that were not nice for people who believe in Creationism - or the idea of theistic evolution - maybe they do not understand why people would choose not to see the evidence). But rest assured: you don't need to believe in evolution (nor in gravity or a round earth or anything else) to "do" and practice LCHF.

    If you practice LCHF, you do it for yourself because it is the best way to eat in the XXst century (some could argue that because it includes milk and milk by products, this diet is not perfect but as long as you do not have lactose intolerance or allergy to any protein in milk, LCHF is an excellent diet for you and will prevent disease). If you have a problem with milk, go paleo.

    The evidence is there. Yet, despite this, some rather well educated people still honestly believe that saturated fats are bad for you. For example, "google" "meet the fats", an article of the American Heart Organization...

    It takes a long, a very long time for organisations to change. The American Heart Association has not yet. And though they represent a big body of teoretically well educated people, they have the same problem as many people: they have a very big ego and have a hard time to say they were wrong... Especially if there is a lot of money at stake. That same organisation still thinks statins are extraordinary medications that save lifes. Most people (and that includes most physicians) are unable to read statistics and do not understand epidemiology. They do not understand the difference between relative and absolute risks and in the case of statins, they ignore the fact that statins do not only block cholesterol (if that was not bad enough as cholesterol is essential for proper brain functioning, proper cell membranes and proper sex hormones secretion). They also block coenzyme Q10 (essential for proper mitochondria functioning everywhere, including and especially in the heart - wonder why we have so much heart failure? - this is a hypothesis), dolichol, tau protein and prenylated protein, essential for the proper functioning of tubules in neurons. Malfunctioning tubules may cause dementia including Alzheimer's. That group of well educated physicians is pushing statins, a group of medications to reduce cholesterol to all age groups in primary (before an event has happened) and secondary prevention (after the event has happened) including to children as young as 8 years old (this last one is being discussed but fortunately has not ben accepted yet). This group of well educated people refuses the evidence that clearly proves that statins in primary prevention are useless and are only somewhat useful by a very small margin in men age 50 to 65. Period. That they are well educated and think they are right does not make them rignt!

    So because you are frustrated that some people said believers in creationism were morons you will stop practicing LCHF? That won't hurt anyone but you. You will be following the advice of well educated people with a very large ego who do selective reading. And who are blatantly wrong.

    And a final word on theories. To say that the theory of evolution and creationism are two theories in their own right shows an unfortunate misunderstanding of what is a theory. A theory is a reflexion based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. it starts with a hypothesis, formulated because of some observations (Darwin observed curious things in the Galapagos, then formulated a theory which he could back up with evidence). The scientific mind then constructs his theory to try to explain what he has observed and then looks for further evidence to either prove or disprove his mental construction. If evidence shows the theory wrong, then the theory must be changed AND THE TRUE SCIENTIFIC MIND WILL GLADLY CHANGE HIS THEORY TO CONSTRUCT ANOTHER ONE THAT EXPLAINS THE EVIDENCE. If you areshown evidence that proves that what you think is wrong, are you willing to change your thinking? If no, you have a belief, not a theory.

    Crationism is not a theory. It cannot even be called a hypothesis: it is a chosen belief. Some uneducated primitive guy in the Sinai copied the history of Creation from much older texts. By the same token, theistic evolution is not a theory: when one has to rely on magic or God's will to "explain" something, this is not science: it is belief.

    It is a Sumerian legend, "Enki and Ninhursag" written 2800 years before the Christian era, that served as a backdrop to the editors of Genesis. To this, the "authors" of Genesis copied and pasted elements of the Epic of Gilgamesh, an Assyrian legend from the seventeenth century BCE, itself inspired from even older texts. For example…

    "Embark with you samples of all animals [...] Six days and seven nights, storms, heavy rains, hurricanes and flood continued to ransack the earth."

    Actually, the similarities are so striking it is tempting when comparing the two texts to conclude that the Jewish text is an outright plagiarism.

    "Enki and Ninhursag" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" make for some very enlightening reading. You'll never read the Bible in the same way after you read these very interesting ancient texts.

    This being said, you may well believe in what you want. But please, don't do yourself a disservice because your self-esteem has been offended. I respect my colleagues who believe that Statins are good for their patients. The evidence shows me they are wrong and I can present that evidence for their consideration. But I cannot make them change their minds if they so choose not to change it. You can bring the horse to the water, but you can't force him to drink, even if you salt his oats! Even very intelligent well intentioned and likeable people can sometimes think and act like morons. We all can. Let's simply try not to make this too frequent.

    Happy LCHF!

  29. bobbyj
    Could I get the phone number of the Dutch girl?
  30. Monique
    "All these women have common ancestors, but a few thousand years of semi-isolation has led to a divergence of their genetic averages."

    This doesn't prove 'evolution' (i.e. the big bang and so on). And I thought this was a LCHF site, maybe I've gone to the wrong place?

  31. Monique
    Perfectly said, Andreas Barbiero.
  32. Darren
    Hey Brianna,

    Why don't you just forgive him like the good christian your pretending to be?

  33. M
    I find it very ironic that atheists can be so judgmental and deprecating of Christians/believers of God when they essentially believe that everything in our world today, in all it's complexity, came from... nothing. What are the chances of such a comprehensive and harmonious world full of extremely complex organisms and systems developing? My guess is something close to 1 in 100000000000000000000^10. The theory of evolution indeed indicates that the universe had a beginning (no Christian would argue with you there) and that the universe is expanding and cooling - again I don't think any Christians would bother arguing that point, what purpose does it serve? BUT... the theory of evolution does not explain how life started or the complexity of all organisms on earth. And I challenge you to try... maybe "soup theory", or the "Oparin-Haldane hypothesis"? Seriously, those make you sound like you're the one who believes in magic.

    Now enough of the name calling and finger pointing... you can believe your very very weak hypotheses on how life was created and we will continue believing ours with no need for deprecation or abuse from either side.

    BTW Francois, funny you should mention believing in gravity, let me leave you with a quote from Sir Isaac Newton himself: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

    Reply: #44
  34. Damocles
    (From M) "the theory of evolution does not explain how life started or the complexity of all organisms on earth"

    "the theory of evolution does not explain how life started"

    right, evolution is a mechanism that can not explain the initial starting-point (a very primitive lifeform, or life-like form),
    other theories must be applied.

    "or the complexity of all organisms on earth"

    wrong, this is exacly what evolution explains.
    How the diversity evolved by selection and mutation to adapt to specific
    ecological niches.

  35. FrankG
    How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life

    Lane N, Allen JF, Martin W.

    Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK.

    Despite thermodynamic, bioenergetic and phylogenetic failings, the 81-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life. But soup is homogeneous in pH and redox potential, and so has no capacity for energy coupling by chemiosmosis. Thermodynamic constraints make chemiosmosis strictly necessary for carbon and energy metabolism in all free-living chemotrophs, and presumably the first free-living cells too. Proton gradients form naturally at alkaline hydrothermal vents and are viewed as central to the origin of life. Here we consider how the earliest cells might have harnessed a geochemically created proton-motive force and then learned to make their own, a transition that was necessary for their escape from the vents. Synthesis of ATP by chemiosmosis today involves generation of an ion gradient by means of vectorial electron transfer from a donor to an acceptor. We argue that the first donor was hydrogen and the first acceptor CO2.


    ...or I guess we could just rely on bronze-age bed-time stories to make sense of the Universe. Along with a supernatural being -- take your pick of Yahweh, Allah, Zeus etc.. (it's really just an accident of when and where you were born as to which one you believe in) -- who is responsible for genocide, cancer (even in innocent children), death, war, famine, flesh-eating bacteria, parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in living caterpillars etc.. etc...

    That Mitchell and Webb Look -- Abraham and Isaac (Ivan???)

  36. Leroy
    There is clearly a massive flaw with the South African average face as the population is less than 9% white, yet the average face looks overwhelmingly white. Makes me question the others. http://www.dietdoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/averageface.jpg
  37. Ron
    I'm neither a creationist nor religious, and I don't believe the evolution theory. I use my own brain, my own logic, and do my own research. I don't blindly believe in fairy tales like evolution just because "qualified" individuals say it exists. If I listened to qualified individuals and their evidence, I definitely would be staying clear of this site.
    Reply: #38
  38. FrankG
    And that is exactly why science will win out over supernatural beliefs: you don't HAVE to blindly believe in anything no matter how qualified the "expert" who tells you something. Look at the evidence for yourself, look at the observations and reproducible, objective experiments.

    If you find the evidence for evolution by natural selection is unconvincing, I'd be interested to hear what you think explains the diversity of life instead?

    Of interest there are rival theories to the currently, widely accepted Newton/Einstein version. ...of course I mean "theory" in the scientific sense of an established idea based on observable and independently reproducible predictions.

    Reply: #39
  39. FrankG
    ...too late to edit...

    The above should read "...widely accepted Newton/Einstein theory of Gravity".

    Just because Newton invokes "god" that is merely him stating an opinion.. he has no scientific basis for such a statement. Remember that he was also speaking at a time when the academic world was pretty much still controlled by the clergy; so in order to be accepted and promoted in academia one needed to seem at least outwardly, religious -- much like the current situation in the USA (a country founded by atheists) where the only way to be accepted as a mainstream politician is to be a "good christian family man".

    Religion is ALL about blind faith and do as I say (don't do as I do) where an Evangelical stalwart can one minute be preaching hell 'n damnation for gays from the pulpit and then slipping off for a drug-fueled liaison with a gay prostitute at a motel. It is about control, misogyny, division -- it's our way or the highway bubba! Not to mention a TAX FREE way to make million$

  40. Twyz
    Adaptation isn't evolution. Evolution is the change of one species into another. Like produces like, and environmental influences change how we appear and act. When in that situation for a long time, with others who are the same, with continuing reproduction, every set and subset produce a unique genome. Every group looks different because of their isolation; this is in no way evolution of proof of evolution, as all of them *are still humans*. Just different sets of humans.
  41. Murray
    What strikes me about the composites is how similar they all look. I also agree with the comments of others about phenotype variation due to diet. The differences may simply reflect different average diet in different regions. I don't think these establish much in terms of evolutionary change.

    Personally, I don't "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" the sun shining. When I hear or read the words "believe in" to me it connotes the author implicitly knows it is not demonstrable but accepts it as an article of faith. For me the bottom line test for a scientific theory is whether it yields successful and improving engineering. Evolutionary biology is very successful in that regard. Indeed, much of LCHF science employed experimental design crafted from results of evolutionary biology. But no one has to "believe in" the engineering and science that developed LCHF and ketogenic diets in order to follow LCHF and reap the rewards of evolutionary science.

    For me, it is a significant fact that an adaptation on chromosome 2 to prevent loss of lactose tolerance has been identified as the most strongly selected gene in the human genome. It means the per se dictates of strict Paleo and vegans against milk is ideological. Evolutionary science says the issue is more subtle. I gather creationists who believe the earth is some 6000 years old cannot engage in this inquiry, as archeology and genetic analysis shows the lactose tolerance gene arose more than 6000 years ago. I am not sure how they could explain the distribution of the lactose tolerance gene, but as mentioned, they need not take part in science-guided diet engineering to derive the benefits of the end product.

  42. Mike M
    Murray: "For me the bottom line test for a scientific theory is whether it yields successful and improving engineering. "

    For me the bottom line test is whether whether the theory holds up when new evidence is discovered.

    The Theory of Evolution is all about different species sharing common ancestors. This idea was accepted by sciences decades and decades ago. Then along comes breathtaking advances in the study of genetics. The Theory of Evolution would predict that examining the genes of say, whales and elephants, would show how related they are and approximately when they shared a common ancestor. Or, if the Theory of Evolution is bunk, this new knowledge of genetics would invalidate it.

    Guess what? All this new knowledge and evidence fits almost precisely with what evolutionary biologists have been saying all along. That's a win.

    Anyone who disbelieves the Theory of Evolution is welcome to come up with their own theory. If their theory better explains the diversity and relationships between species, is testable, and properly predicts what we'll discover in the future, their theory will be accepted. But if their theory is simply "God did it" it won't be scientifically accepted. Because it's not science.

  43. Murray
    Mike M, I don't disagree. But unless you can do something with a theory--change things in a way that makes a difference--the discovery does not make any difference. I recall professor Hartmanis in my theory of computing class observing that the inability to prove Np-complete algorithms would not make a huge difference in real world because if one engineered depending on an incomputable or NP-complete algorithm and a bridge fell down, then that would be a polynomial time proof. So at the end of the day, unless you can engineer with a theory and accomplish tasks prospectively, you just have an elaborate interpretation. This is the difficulty I have with the global warming/climate change/climate disruption models--they are just models. They have predicted accelerated warming caused by increased CO2 concentration, yet global temperature as measured by satellites has flatlined in the past 15 years despite steadily increasing CO2 concentration.The models do not predict temperature with any accuracy and they do not yield successful engineering. In any genuine science, they would be discarded as falsified.

    So that is my personal bottom line test: show me the engineering.

  44. Francois
    We are indeed far from LCHF - then it does show we all have other interests and some curiosity.
    M (that's a short name!), on the fact Sir Isaac spoke of God to explain gravity... I was going to state exactly what FrankG wrote at #39 but I'll let you read it instead. In a world where religion was so powerful, one would have been burned at the stake for stating that something could exist without reference to god. Please do read what nearly happened to a certain Copernic...

    Nowadays, Christians do not burn Atheists at the stake but try stating you are atheist in a Moslem country if you feel suicidal. So much for tolerance...

    So the Universe is so complex that it needs a creator that is, by definition, even more complex. If you stand by that position which is "each and every complex being needs to have been created by a being much more complex", therefore god exists, then in this idea, god is a real being (invisible and all, but who cares). So please answer this question: who created the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator? What? god by definition does not need any creator? Then if an infinitely complex god does not need a creator, why would an infinitely complex Universe need one?

    And by the way, the Big Bang is still only a theory. There are more complex and strange theories about the birth of our universe: the colliding branes theory for example... A theory is only a theory and must be changed in face of the evidence. Parallel (real) theories may co-exist for some time, but eventually, one will have to disappear. Ideas and opinions are legions. They do not need to be verified. One can keep them regardless of the evidence.

    And it is not being "judgmental and deprecating" to state the evidence. By definition, Creationism and theistic evolution are not theories. For a theory, there has to be an hypothesis, formulated to verify some observation, then some reflexion to try to explain the observed phenomenom, then some facts searching and comparison with the formulated hypothesis to see if it holds. If it does not, the scientist will change the theory. Creationism is only a belief. All the evidence is against an young earth (6000 years according to the Bible if I recall), there is evidence of evolution - as a physician, the speed at which bacteria adapt to antibiotics is clear evidence of micro-evolution - not epigenics... To witness macro-evolution, we'd have to live a few million years. So I guess we'll have to relie on fossils and genetic studies. Are creationists ready to change their belief in face of the evidence? No. Not one single moment. Therefore, it is not a hypothesis. Theistic evolution is not either because a hypothesis has to be verified. You cannot rely on magic or god when you hit a stumbling block.

    Enuma Elish creation of the world
    When the sky above was not named,
    And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
    And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,
    And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
    Their waters were mingled together,
    And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
    When of the gods none had been called into being.

    Genesis creation of the world
    "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. "

    You may choose to believethese old summerian and babylonian writings are the truth. The story of creation in the Bible is a plagiarism from many previous sources. If you read the Enuma Elish Babylonian poem of creation, you'll see it is a copy and paste. It's your choice to believe these old primitive writings... But please do not call this a theory.

    This being said, may we stop the digression and go back to LCHF?

  45. Guyjeb
    "Another piece of information from the conference: Only 14% of the American population completely believes in evolution. If you happen to belong to the other 86%, then feel free to make up another story about the faces."

    This really creates division among those you are trying to help. Not sure why you decided to pass on a statement that singles out a group of people and put it on this website.

    Reply: #47
  46. bill
    Guyjeb said:

    "This really creates division"

    It does no such thing. Pointing out a division doesn't "create"
    the division.

  47. FrankG
    Actually it is all in your own interpretation :-)

    "feel free to make up another story about the faces" isn't necessarily offensive, in fact it seems pretty mild and respectful to me... Dr Andreas offers an interpretation of the data based on his understanding of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection... if YOU do not agree with that theory then please feel free to make up your own explanation.

    Do you think that he perhaps has some obligation to offer interpretations that cater for every taste and belief -- even those that he does not adhere to himself?

    Interesting how pretty much every facet of society is up for discussion these days -- politics, sexual orientation, monetary policies, health, nutrition etc... in all of these we can amicably (or otherwise) agree or disagree but woe betide anyone who does not show complete respect for my religion! The final taboo? I think it is about time we shook it up so that the human race can finally mature. It seems to me that religion is the MOST divisive force we currently have to face -- either you are with us, or you are against us... no room for compromise!

  48. FrankG
    Frankly I find these 86% USA figures (and increasingly in the UK) very troubling - what you do in your own life and your personal beliefs (so long as these do not affect me) are YOUR business, not mine. I personally know many very good and nice folks who are religious (many are in my family).

    What worries me is seeing high-school children graduating while convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old and being taken in by "museums" where they see idyllic scenes of animatronic dinosaurs living alongside humans -- this in supposedly one of the most technologically advanced countries. It defies all reason and common sense to take something on blind faith, despite evidence to the contrary. Except there are groups dedicated to actively trying to keep this contrary evidence from those same children.

    Then we have the spectre of a recent "president" with his finger on the nuclear button while holding the firm and sincere belief that the "rapture", "second coming", "end of days", or whatever you want to call it, is just around the corner and could probably be hastened by judicious use of that nuclear arsenal -- not to mention that the Earth was "given" to us to rape, pillage and plunder all its resources... with no reason to worry about the future for our children.

    And this is just the Christians... the Muslim states where religion is in charge are truly scary... especially if you are woman - amazing how much each of the main mono-theistic religions have in common when it comes to things like misogyny though.

    But it is just as Murray points out above: the same old same old... they each have their "holy book", their "one true god" and they are each mutually exclusive. Only WE are right therefore YOU are all wrong!

  49. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor

    QUOTE Only 14% of the American population completely believes in evolution. If you happen to belong to the other 86%, "then feel free to MAKE UP another story about the faces".

    WOW... didnt realise you need to believe in evolution to do LCHF. This makes me so sad, to disregard other peoples beliefs.

    People are free to believe what they want. Choose to capitalize the quote another way and you get this:

    "feel free to make up ANOTHER story about the faces"

    Evolution is a story too. I believe in it and think it has excellent and solid scientific support, but it's also a story I tell myself. Like I said, if it does not fit your view of the world then go ahead and believe in another story.

  50. NWchick
    So, what do evolutionists say in regards to the age of the Earth? Could it be possible they think it's around 2.19 billion years old? I would be interested to know....
    Replies: #52, #54
1 2 3

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts