However Humphrey told the Times their behaviour may be partly the result of their parents tolerating the behaviour in childhood.

Well, if that's the cause then it has nothing to do with evolution at all.

Don't forget these two as well...

The siblings, the subject of a new BBC documentary to be aired on March 17, suffer from a genetic abnormality that may prevent them from walking upright.

And...

All five are mentally retarded and have problems with language as a result of a form of underdevelopment of the brain known as cerebellar ataxia.

Genetic problem's aren't against ToE.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Please, all you evolutionist buffs, tell us if this is relevant to our evoluionary process. Is this real?

Genetic change in general is relevant to the concept of evolution.

A change such as this... drastic and occuring over a single generation is usually called saltation. Darwin was very much opposed to this idea himself, and I believe that saltation doesn't fit in too well in the minds of many modern NDTists.

Whether or not this is relevant to the theory of common ancestry between apes and man certainly isn't revealed by this news article alone.

The article is real, the people are real, whether or not this is a genetic 'throwback' to a previous evolutionary form is entirely speculative at this point, and honestly reeks of the mistaken idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." It's highly unlikely that a single genetic change or even the inheritance of bunch of recessive disorders would induce some 'previous behavior lost to evolution. '

It is noteworthy however, that all five of these individuals are mentally retarded.



[edit on 7-3-2006 by mattison0922]

I am wondering if the kids being retarted have taken them to their animal instincts? Nonetheless, March 17 on BBC, we will learn it all. AAC

I think they walked this way because they were:

a) psychologically abnormal
b) it had been conditioned into them because of the family they grew up in (the eldest did it, then the next etc)

My psychology teacher and e were having a debate on it. i was saying devolution and she was saying psychology. Her argument made more sense.