Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wow, I considered locking this as a repost, or rather using that as a valid excuse. I found it incredibly painful to find out how little one person knows about the theory of evolution, yet that person believes that this new discovery even comes remotely close to proving the theory of evolution wrong.
Unfortunately, OP, if anything, this strengthens our understanding of evolution of humans. While you're running around, claiming that God is some all powerful practical joker ("hahahaha! Now I put two different fossils near each other. That'll really test their faith") those of us who are able to employ common sense are gaining a better grasp of just where we came from.
This new discovery does absolutely NOTHING to discredit the theory of evolution (which is now regarded as fact.) It merely demonstrates that we don't know every step along the evolutionary path for all species. Of course, the anti-evolutionists, for whatever reason, seem to feel that since scientists don't know what every step is, and that there are a few holes here and there in their knowledge, that their theory is wrong. That's no different however, than telling me that since I can't explain every step in how my automobile works that it must have been created by God instead of Chrysler.
Second...I feel the theory in its present form is wrong due the new evidence...I did not say "NO EVOLUTION"
Let's be realistic here:
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Evolution is the fairytale, but the stories about the benevolent all powerful yet invisible man in the sky who passively watches the unspeakable degradations enacted daily in his name on countless innocents is real.
Don't distract from the thread by confusing one fairytale with another.
Calling evolution a fairytale comes pretty vlose to saying "NO EVOLUTION", no?
...
Anyway, I would be far more interested in hearing your opinion on how, exactly, the modern theory as it pertains to human evolution is incorrect. You won't get far from that article, though, given tidbits of idiocy such as these (which, you having quoted repeatedly on the first page, shows your rather humorously lacking grasp of the subject):
In 2000 Leakey found an old Homo erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that one evolved from the other, researchers said.
I suppose it is impossible, in your mind, that one branch of H. habilis evolved into H. erectus while other portions of the group stuck around as H. habilis ? Or, that they could not share some sort of common ancestor? Remember, when evolution occurs, all members of a species do not magically change into a new one. Instead, a certain portion living together can gain some sort of advantage that does not occur within the enteire species. We only have such a diverse amount of species today because speciation does
not occur in the way suggested by this article.
Far more likely, of course, is that you quoted this segment of the article without actually thinking about what it really meant.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are one of those who says that because we do not, and indeed,
can not understand everything, there is no point in believing in human evolution, when all the kinks haven't been worked out yet?
edit: I left this out initially because attacking the messenger is usually not my style, but look closely at that segment of the article. Do you notice how the writer sepearates "Leakey" from the "researchers" and actually purposefully leaves these "researchers' anonymous? That alone should tell you something.
2nd edit: for silly mistake.
Facebook
Twitter