Getting Behind in a Facial Recognition Study

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been overworked, moonlighting at the new propaganda mill over near Fort Defiance. I say that because they seem to have been gnawing on a mess of peyote buttons again. And I say that because of the outlandish "research" being conducted using the ever-present circular reasoning: to prove evolution, you assume it's true. Then they mix in some more strange assumptions and bad logic. Ain't working, Pilgrim.

Credit: Pixabay / 1447441

Just a moment for a side note. Proponents of molecules-to-monkey evolution get on the prod when someone says that they believe we evolved from apes. To get into semantics, they believe we evolved from a common ancestor, the lineages for apes and humans having diverged way back when. Then they prop up the idol of failed transitional form Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis (Latin for "Southern ape from Afar", because scientists like dead languages out of tradition). Proposed missing links look mighty apelike, and chimpanzees are presumed to be our close evolutionary cousins, so Darwin's disciples can pull in their claws a mite when dealing with inexact phrasing, okey dokey?

Assuming vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution to be true, and chimps are our cousins, they commenced to doing a facial recognition study. In involves studying the way chimpanzees recognize each others' sit bones.

"Sit bones, Cowboy Bob?"

You know. Keister. Fanny. Hindquarters. Tokus. Backside. So, a study of chimp buttock recognition was used to try and explain how humans evolved the ability to recognize faces. Make silly claims, claim evolution, and get paid grant money. Doesn't need to be demonstrable science, either, and the nonsense even gets reported in news media. That's how it works. The truth is really what makes sense: we were created fully operational and mature from the beginning.

Human brains come specially wired to recognize faces. Where did that innate wiring come from? Two psychologists finagled a fantasy answer that shows how crazy evolution-based reasoning can get. Their conclusion, oddly enough, involves chimpanzee rear ends.

We perceive faces quite differently from how we see other objects. We process the individual features of most items to recognize what they are and what they mean, but we recognize a face all at once. That way we can quickly gather subtle communication clues from facial expressions during conversations and other interactions.

Don't fall behind. To read the rest, click on "Facial Recognition Study Misses the Bottom Line".







Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!