Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Evolutionary theory (of man) challenged!!!!!!

  1. #1 Evolutionary theory (of man) challenged!!!!!! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Ain't such a huge challenge where you're gonna get creationists saying "I told you so," but...
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/...uman_evolution


    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    The headline is misleading. It's certainly not "the" TOE that's challenged, just one part of our understanding of human evolution. That's how science works, theories are constantly refined and improved.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    That yahoo article is actually VERY horribly written. It nearly goes so far as to fabricate facts. I read the article on BBC, and it definitely didn't sound like it was written by a creationist thinking it was the biggest story since man was on the moon.

    Yahoo is, by all accounts, the worst news source.

    In either case, this does nothing to challenge the theory of evolution. In fact I fail to see how it's a challenge whatsoever. In fact, to me, this proves to be one of the better archaeological discoveries.

    If a creationist thinks, even for a moment, that this equates to "I told you so", then that person isn't worth listening to to begin with. I agree fully with neutrino, the headline is misleading to the point of being false (BBC was not).

    Moral of the story: Yahoo sucks. Big surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Yea...when I first saw that headline, I was like: "wow, this should be interesting," only to find that it's just a new discovery.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Thats VERY disappointing! It isnt even that good point, homoerectus still diverged from a path that homo habillis then followed; I think of this article as more of a splitting hairs type of paper which is only supported by the limited number of fossils from that time which still exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    Ain't such a huge challenge where you're gonna get creationists saying "I told you so," but...
    New evidence surfaces, is evaluated, and incorporated into our current knowledge of natural history. Such a "challenge" is the basis of science, and has nothing to do with creationism. Jumping to conclusions based on a headline is easier than reading the article, is it?

    Rigid absoluteness is the realm of religious dogma, not science. As scientific understanding progresses, evolution theory itself evolves. That's the beauty of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Ain't such a huge challenge where you're gonna get creationists saying "I told you so," but...
    New evidence surfaces, is evaluated, and incorporated into our current knowledge of natural history. Such a "challenge" is the basis of science, and has nothing to do with creationism. Jumping to conclusions based on a headline is easier than reading the article, is it?

    Rigid absoluteness is the realm of religious dogma, not science. As scientific understanding progresses, evolution theory itself evolves. That's the beauty of science.
    Umm...I think you misread my post. I was saying it's not such a huge challenge; creationists aren't going to say "I told you so". Now do you understand what I'm saying? And read my second post as well.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by sciphilos
    creationists aren't going to say "I told you so".
    If there's one thing I've learned about creationists, they absolutely WILL read this article and say "I told you so". It doesn't matter what the discovery is. They told us so. They twist even foundational bricks of evolution and make arguments that they are actually anti-evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Jeremyhfht, you forget vox...

    this is indeed not helping creationists but just proving the evolution theory even more. the split date of the human past was pushed allitle back and a whole human race died out and one surived. I don't see the point. Someone should write a letter to this mad man.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    I don't see the point. Someone should write a letter to this mad man.
    Which mad man? The author of the article? Hardly so. There is nothing in the article that suggests a leaning to creationist thinking. The only quibble I have with the whole thing is the incorrect spelling of evolution in the the title.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    I guess I'm kind of slow...I didn't notice the incorrect spelling.

    Evoluton.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    No, that's perfectly acceptable. Most people ignore the title if the link is spelled appropriately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1
    can anybody explain why finding homo habilis and homo erectus bones that existed around the same date would cause this researcher to believe that erectus could not have evolved from habilis? I would seem to think it would be possible that they existed alongside and could have evolved from one another. none of the articles posted around this delve into this and I'd like to see some good articles written by experts in the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Let me help you out there...

    What most likely happened is that they evolved as two separate races from an earlier ancestor. The "sister" race died out, and until now it was thought that one evolved from the other. This obviously isn't the case anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •