Ken Ham on the Origin of Eyebrows

You may have seen a recent article or two on the evolution of eyebrows. It’s a cute topic, so many newspapers have mentioned it. What they’re reporting is explained in PhysOrg: The evolutionary advantage of having eyebrows. They say:

Eyebrows — we all have them, but what are they actually for? While eyebrows help to prevent debris, sweat, and water from falling into the eye socket, they serve another important function too – and it’s all to do with how they move and human connection.

We already know that our modern minds often reflect the ways our ancestors needed to work together to survive in the distant evolutionary past. But it seems our anatomy reflects the importance of getting on with other people as well. As our new research published in Nature Ecology and Evolution [Supraorbital morphology and social dynamics in human evolution, abstract only] suggests, the ability to look either intimidating or friendly is reflected in our bones – at least where the shape of the skulls is concerned.

[…]

[O]ur latest research may have found an answer to explain why archaic humans had such a pronounced wedge of bone over their eyes (and why modern humans don’t). And it seems to be down to the fact that our highly movable eyebrows can be used to express a wide range of subtle emotions – which could have played a crucial role in human survival.

That may be interesting, but it’s all wrong. For accurate information about eyebrows — and everything else — you have to ask Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: The Evolution of the Eyebrow? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The fossil record shows a great deal of diversity among post-Flood humans (scientists haven’t found any pre-Flood humans as of yet). [Hee hee!] Some of this diversity is shown in skull shape. Many ancient humans had much thicker brow ridges than we do today. Evolutionary scientists have tried to explain why humans lost these more robust faces. Their newest story — social communication.

Hambo provides a link to an article about the research in The Guardian: Raising eyebrows: how evolution gave us expressive faces . The headline alone was enough to infuriate him. He says:

This story is nothing more than that — a story. It’s a fairy tale! The reason these scientists can’t understand the variety among humans is because they come from the wrong starting point.

Ooooooooooooh! What’s the right starting point? Hambo tells us:

When we start with God’s Word, we know these humans didn’t live at separate times as they were evolving to so-called modern man. They all lived at roughly the same time — after the Flood.

Fascinating! He finishes with this:

These are post-Babel people (all descended from Adam and Eve and then through Noah and his family) who spread around the world after the languages were divided. The more robust face was just part of the variety God built into the human genome.

Now you know where your eyebrows come from. The only question we have is why those researchers didn’t just ask Hambo for the answer. Instead, they wasted their time and now they look like fools!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “Ken Ham on the Origin of Eyebrows

  1. Why do we have eyebrows? Because God has eyebrows obviously. How tough is it to remember the “created in god’s image” claim? Ken would have to work hard to get more than a paragraph out of the basics though.

    I wanted to write something funny about the pre/post flood fossil statements but I cannot stop laughing.

    Cheers

  2. He’s starting to sound like that Monty Python skit where the guy accidentally wanders into the “contradiction” room?

    Science says it’s because… Ken: “no it’s not!”

    Evidence shows us that… Ken: “no it’s not!”

    What. A. Baffoon.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Doesn’t some Catholic church have a relic of Adam’s rib – the one that didn’t get turn into Eve?

  4. Scientists haven’t found any pre-Flood humans yet.
    Is that supposed to be a comment on the ineptitude of scientists?
    Or is there some YEC reason for the lack of fossils?
    Aren’t some fossils accepted as being ancient humans?

  5. Steven Thompson

    TomS, while YECs differ among themselves as to what strata are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood, a rule of thumb is that Paleozoic deposits are considered antediluvian, Mesozoic strata are seen as Flood sediments, and Cenozoic layers are regarded as post-diluvian. This view, I think, goes back to the early 19th century: the failure to find human bones and artifacts in the “secondary” and earlier rocks led Adam Sedgwick to abandon flood geology. But from a modern YEC standpoint there is no reason for the paucity of human fossils in the Cambrian. And yes, most YECs regard most specimens of H. erectus and more derived hominids as descendants of Adam.

  6. Ol’Hambo is right and he himself is conclusive evidence.

    His eyebrow bones resemble way too much to the appearance of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to be coincidence. However I suspect that his brains don’t.

  7. I don’t know what it tells us, but aren’t Neanderthal brains larger than modern
    sapiens brains?

  8. I don’t know either, but I do know that I don’t look down on the intelligence of Neanderthals. Concerning the intelligence of creationists however ….

  9. Ham is right in condemning adaptationist presuppositions as “just so stories” unless they can be backed up by evidence! See my Evolution is not progress https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/evolution-is-not-progress/ and links therein

  10. One can look at some adaptive scenarios as suggestions for experiments.

  11. TomS, don’t you know that experiments about the past are impossible, and therefore scientific knowledge about the past is unattainable? (The Ice Ages, however, are a mysterious exception)

  12. Eyebrows – proof that gawd is incompetent! All eyebrows do is grow wildly in all direction especially down into your eyes so that you miss seeing the lion!!!

  13. @PB
    And experiments about the far distant are also impossible. Therefore scientific knowledge about the distant stars is unobtainable. This solves the problem for YEC about ancient star light. We can have no scientific knwledge about stars being more distant than a few thousand light-years.
    Whew!

  14. TomS; Ssshhh, don’t give them ideas

  15. Isn’t that just what Auguste Comte wrote in 1835 – we will never know the chemistry of the stars?

  16. The only thing that is a fairy tale is Ken Ham’s delusion claims.

    Ken Ham and his fellow morons will always distort science to fit there beliefs.

  17. Indeed,TomS, although Wollaston had observed what became known as the Fraunhofer lines in 1802

    though to be fair, it was only around 1845 hat they were matched with atomic emission lines and their significance understood

  18. I agree totally.
    It should be a warning to us about making pronouncements about what is impossible.

  19. Scots wha hae!

    Actually, I believe his assertion that we have not found any pre-flood human remains is 100% accurate. There was no flood

  20. Scots wha hae!

    Although I guess technically then every human remains is pre-flood, so in fact he is 100% wrong, which is certainly the much more normal state of affairs

  21. Leave it to creationists to be 100% accurate and 100% wrong at the same time.