Evolution of the Nose

Life Nature Library of 1965 explains the evolution of the nose.

Here I quote the caption below the man's profile on page 131:

The development of the face, from the fish to contemporary man, is shown in successive stages. In the lower orders, here represented by the shark, the jaw is simply an underslung mouth, the nose just a snout, the forehead flat and the head long. Progressing through reptiles, marsupials and primates to man, the jaw pushes down and forward, the eyes work their way to the front of the head for true binocular vision. The head becomes increasingly spherical - the most efficient shape for maximum brain in minimum skull.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• theory
• of
• evolution
• Darwin
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• the
• nose
• Rockefeller
• University

[OccultistPriest]

First of i doubt you actually read that book,.. you probably only looked at the pictures,.. we didn't come from gorillas,. or monkeys,.. they are distant cousins of ours, we have a common ancestors, they evolved as we did to conform to there surroundings,

i don't know, you make me scratch my head, you made this video in response to a video that even dumbs down evolution so a novice 3 year old could understand it and yet Urgh,.. and people wonder why i think Christians are dumb

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

I read the entire book. Ask yourself, 'Why did I have to reject what is said with a false argument?'

[rchodges]

1965? So, any chance you have a book from this century regarding this material?

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

It makes no sense to knock the printing date of the material. Darwin's work is from the 1850's.

[rchodges]

I'm only pointing out that more modern textbooks don't print this material. I had a biology book about a year ago; and there was no reference to this material.

This has a similar feel to refuting a biology textbook by saying that "Heckler's Embryos" are fake. The scientific concept of evolution continues to be honed and sharpened as the understanding of the world clarifies.

I appreciate the point you are making, but you should be showing current material if you wish to contend it.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

The point of this video is that pro-evolutionists dogmatically thrust evolutionary theory as fact. Yet, as we can see, a lot of it is just "pop science". Truth is, the majority of scientists are furious over publications that thrust weeks-old ideas into the general population without peer review. This sets science back about 50 years each time. The incorrect knowledge has to be refuted many times before people change their understanding.

[imyoursuperior2]

lol, what some people won't believe just so they won't have to answer for their actions.

[krazeekooladam]

The Rockefeller University? Well that explains it. Of course the Rockefellers would fund this anti-Christ agenda.

Hey KnowJesusKnowPeace, I am sorry for getting sidetracked, this is not related at all, but there is something I noticed. The first video to be related to this one, if you look off to the rightside under this video, is a video called BOOGERS IN MY NOSE, by youtube user mrpregnant. LOL...oh my :) how did this happen? :)

[atchisrj1]

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

I read the entire book. In 1965, other lateral movers of information, such as yourself, also dogmatically asserted what is printed in that book. Much of what is printed there as "law", is changed today, yet still called law.

[harvellt]

And stop using Einstein as a call to authority, he was wrong about stuff. He was brilliant, but he hated the idea of quantum physics.

[harvellt]

Whats the point of ripping apart a specific book from the 60s?

[LadroneScar]

@Split539 D) All of the above.

[acfacf4321]

Starnprod-- what the hell are you talking about?? You realize this is 2009, right?