"Secular scientists have told incredible stories for over a century about how fossil teeth supposedly support the idea that humans evolved from primates. A lack of knowledge about tooth development has provided fertile ground for wild speculations about evolving tooth sizes, skull shapes, foot shapes, and even life habits. A new report changes all that conjecture.
An international group publishing in Nature showed that the second and third molars develop
according to the size of the first molar. In modern humans and extinct human varieties like Neandertals, molars tend to grow slightly smaller toward the rear of the mouth. In extinct apes called australopiths the molars "tend to get bigger towards the back," according to a brief Nature summary of the work. With this model, researchers measure a single tooth and use it to predict other molar sizes.
This research conveys at least three implications for origins.
First, it erases prior attempts to fit tooth sizes into evolutionary speculations. Anthropologist Aida Gómez-Robles at the George Washington University wrote for Nature, "This complexity may make teeth less useful for inferring phylogenies than we tend to recognize." In other words, the newfound fact that biology explains tooth sizes undermines the century-old endeavor of constructing phylogenetic trees to illustrate speculative evolutionary relationships.
Second, teeth do not directly develop according to unknowable ancient natural factors like diet, but according to a biological program. Where did that program originate? All known programs come from real live programmers.
Lastly, this research shows another anatomical distinction between man and apes. Modern and extinct human variations exhibit a distinct tooth characteristic—molars become smaller toward the back of the mouth. Extinct ape molars had the opposite trend.
Programmed biology, not evolution, explains ape and human molars. Time will tell if those secular scientists who built careers on tooth evolution stories will accept the speculative nature of their conjectures or not." ICR
And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,
Amos 4:6
An international group publishing in Nature showed that the second and third molars develop
This research conveys at least three implications for origins.
First, it erases prior attempts to fit tooth sizes into evolutionary speculations. Anthropologist Aida Gómez-Robles at the George Washington University wrote for Nature, "This complexity may make teeth less useful for inferring phylogenies than we tend to recognize." In other words, the newfound fact that biology explains tooth sizes undermines the century-old endeavor of constructing phylogenetic trees to illustrate speculative evolutionary relationships.
Second, teeth do not directly develop according to unknowable ancient natural factors like diet, but according to a biological program. Where did that program originate? All known programs come from real live programmers.
Lastly, this research shows another anatomical distinction between man and apes. Modern and extinct human variations exhibit a distinct tooth characteristic—molars become smaller toward the back of the mouth. Extinct ape molars had the opposite trend.
Programmed biology, not evolution, explains ape and human molars. Time will tell if those secular scientists who built careers on tooth evolution stories will accept the speculative nature of their conjectures or not." ICR
And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,
Amos 4:6
