//
you're reading...
Creation/Evolution, science

Human evolution rewritten…again?

TH19-EVOLUTION_1623017f

See this article:
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/fossil-may-rewrite-human-evolutionary-history/article5248736.ece
According to this article, a recent skull find may “rewrite” human evolution.  I’ve long been told since evolutionary science is so solid it will never be rewritten, but perhaps added to what exists.  For the last few years I have been researching this, that sentiment does not seem to be the case.  I have found article upon article that throws wrenches in what we think is our current understanding.

This latest find states that perhaps there are not as many intermediate forms in the lineage of humans stating: “just as people look different from one another today, so did early hominids look different from one another, and the dissimilarity of the bones they left behind may have fooled scientists into thinking that they came from different species.”  Isn’t this what creationist organizations have been saying for years??

According to creationists, different skeletal remains of distinct humans may represent pre-flood or immediate post-flood humans that have adapted to those different atmospheric conditions – but not intermediate forms.  Glad to see mainstream science catching up with creation little by little, just like they’ve done with junk DNA and the “tree of life” reinterpretations as of late.

I realize this more than likely won’t change their worldview, but it is a further confirmation that shaky science inevitably will evolve itself while firm foundations never change.

Advertisements

About Tim

http://www.gracewithsalt.com

Discussion

12 thoughts on “Human evolution rewritten…again?

  1. Tim
    But why are you still flagging your dishonest article of 28.09.12 (science has NOT caught up with the ‘creationist orchard’ imaginations – as I have pointed out by email many times). The tree of life is bushy but it is STILL one tree.
    Ashley

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 18, 2013, 9:23 pm
    • We have a difference of interpretation. I have never claimed that the single lineage has been done away with – just that it is moving towards the direction of creationist predictions.

      Posted by Tim | October 18, 2013, 9:25 pm
      • In the earlier article you wrote: “They [folks at the Creation Museum] say a more appropriate interpretation of the observed evidence is an “orchard” verses a “tree” set up. Wait, that sounds like what science seems to be arriving at as well! Is it possible that the folks at the Creation Museum may know how to do science after all?? To many, that statement is a scary thought! But the evidence doesn’t lie, does it. Looks like they had it right all along!
        Don’t get me wrong, I realize evolutionists are not fully abandoning common descent…”.

        Thus you suggested that scientists are on their way to replacing a very bushy tree or tangled bank with an orchard of separate and discrete trees. It does not look that way to me. You also implied a partial but not complete abandonment of common descent.

        I accept that you found some quotes where eg people used phrases such as “more like a ‘forest'”.

        There is also horizontal gene transfer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

        I think I previously flagged the diagram shown here (top right). It does imply a numerous ancestral community of primitive cells. If that is no longer a tree with a single trunk, it is not really either an orchard or a forest in my opinion. It certainly is NOT an orchard based on the book of Genesis (which never mentions bacteria at all – why not) as shown in the Creation Museum illustration shown in your previous post.

        Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 18, 2013, 10:08 pm
  2. The answer to the question posed in the title of your previous blog post is ‘no’.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 18, 2013, 10:15 pm
  3. Btw you deleted the version of my ‘liar’ post that corrected my typos and displayed the initial version that had the two typos.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 18, 2013, 11:44 pm
  4. I’m personally quite annoyed by all these headlines suggesting human evolution is being challenged or rewritten by this discovery. The new skull isn’t rewriting human evolution so much as relabelling it. The “story” remains unchanged: we evolved in Africa and by ~2 million years ago had developed a relatively modern body (but still quite an ape-like head). Homo erectus used this new body to migrate out of Africa and around the world. Individual populations became isolated and began to change a bit. Before these new variants would’ve been labelled different species, like Homo ergaster or Homo georgicus. This discovery suggests they all fall within the variation of Homo erectus and should be labelled as such.

    Although it’s important to understand just how significant these variants were, this hardly the major challenge most headlines seem to be painting it out to be. Homo erectus still evolved and continued to evolve over the course of its existence, developing a bigger brain, longer legs and more advanced technology over the ensuing million years or so.

    If you find the topic interesting I’ve just finished a blogpost about it:
    http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/new-fossil-trims-our-family-tree/

    Posted by Adam Benton | October 31, 2013, 5:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: