It is not often that naturists complain to the BBC about people wearing clothes in one of their programmes. However, this has happened in the UK recently, after the broadcasting of scenes featuring early humans in the series “Andrew Marr’s History of The World“. A spokesperson said: “It is astonishing that the BBC, that once proud bastion of journalistic integrity, should be sacrificing its reputation for commercial reasons.” According to the Daily Telegraph’s report, “The group said that in the Exodus from Africa, Ancient Egypt, the Minoans, the Caribs, the Australian aborigines, and members of a contemporary South American tribe, the costumes were the product of the BBC censors, not history.” Instead of contesting the complainants, a representative from BBC Audience Services, said he was sorry about the “compromises in accuracy”. Apparently, the corporation felt “obliged” to make compromises in the production of dramatic reconstructions. “You are of course correct in pointing out that, in reality, natives in various scenes in the early part of the series would have been naked,” he said. “But in making a series like this we have to take into account the sensitivities of the widest possible world audience.” The throwaway phrase “of course” is worthy of critical scrutiny. We need to ask whether these comments accurately represent the findings of science. How much do we actually know about the sartorial habits of prehistoric man?
For more, go here.
Actually it is not all that surprising that Darwinists would loudly protest that they (earliest humans) were clothed in the film, Darwinists have been trying to fictitiously dumb down and ‘apeify’ human ancestry for as long as Darwinism has been around:
The problem of forcing the fossil evidence into a preconceived Darwinian narrative is found to be is widespread and pervasive in the field of paleo-anthropology:
Artistic renditions of supposedly primitive ape-men are even more ripe for abuse by Darwinists than the fossil evidence is:
Further notes:
related notes:
Humans began wearing clothes 170,000 years ago, according to a University of Florida news report:
The study is available online here.
So how did putting on clothes increase reproductive rates?
Seems to me they would hinder it =p
Man, I bet we could come up with some evolutionary just so stories for that!
Well mung, I’m still waiting for the ‘just so’ story from Darwinists for this transition:
Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system:
Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM
Related notes:
Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html
A False Trichotomy
Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/
Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html
The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.
CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists
Theory of the ‘Rotting’ Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow – February 2012
Excerpt: “the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn’t lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome”, “,,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. “Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it’s clear the Y isn’t going anywhere.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....154359.htm
BA77:
Well then. You’re saying chimps have a constant boner?
So if as a developing human I didn’t have one, I might reproduce more if I could hide that fact under clothes!
I wonder why we lost all that hair but retained eyebrows?
Did the ones that had no eyebrows die out, because, when it came time to throw the spear at the attacking predator, dust got in their eyes?
“Naturists complained” . . .
Looks like the original poster is pulling your leg.
people first wore clothes and later migrated from Babel. only after going primitive did they lose interest in clothes.
By the way the evidence is in biology.
Surely men have more body hair then women because we were more undressed .
Women were more sedate and less in the climate as men and so more hairless.
Save on the head where they needed more hair relative to the size of their head.
The types of hair growth on people indicate a clothed folk and not a naked ape.