Evolutionary Theory Challenged By Fossils

CBS NEWS ^ | 08/09/2007

[Lurker]

FYI

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[mnehring]

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man..

When was this really ever used by scientists outside teaching kindergartners? This is more like something you'll find in a cartoon or movie. I thought the multiple branch theory has been around for at least 75 years.

[ontap]

It’s is gonna get interesting around here! 1...2...3... go!

[Lurker]

Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

"He said erectus...hehehehehe"

L

[RightWhale]

This article exemplifies devolution of reason in journalism.

[js1138]

Imagine that. a branching tree rather than a beeline for the one true form. A theory in crisis.

[vetsvette]

“Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.”

I wonder if this is the first time they’ve noticed that the fossil record has presented problems to Darwin’s fantasy from the beginning. But, they might be forgiven since every time they run into an obvious problem, the evolutionists just create another tale that hasn’t yet been disproved, and therefore can be accepted as fact by those intent on “proving” to themselves that they won’t be facing any final judgment and can therefore live as if there’s no tomorrow.

[metmom]

The two species lived near each other, but probably did not interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

Hard and fast science here, I see.

Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said.

Doesn't eating some meat indicate that most of their diet was vegetarian also? IOW, their diets weren't really much different. They were both omnivores.

"they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

I'd like to know how he knows this. Direct observation? I Interviewing them?

Guessing?

[ODDITHER]

The evolutionists like the antiwar crowd and the global warming nuts wont let a little thing like facts get in the way of their religion.

[metmom]

Scientists don’t teach kindergarten in the first place. And this is pretty much what was taught in high school biology in public schools for years.

[Stark_GOP]

Imagine that. a branching tree rather than a beeline for the one true form. A theory in crisis.

---

First sentence, “...a wayward bush with stubby branches...”

[<1/1,000,000th%]

There’s no such thing as fossils.

;)

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I’ve been told recently that I’m still a knuckle-dragging ape!

[MrB]

One glaring fact about the “fossil record” is that it simply CAN’T show speciation. It can show that species existed, but it cannot show that species B’s ancestors were species A.

[shuckmaster]

shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

The only hole being poked is through the credibility of the person who wrote the article. Using that kind of idiot logic, everyone in England should have died the same day America declared independence. How can America evolve from England and there still be English walking around at the same time? It's amazing to ponder how dumb evolution deniers can get.

[SirLinksalot]

There’s no such thing as fossils.

;)

Really ? Here's one for your perusal :

[ClearCase_guy]

Bush’s fault!

[woollyone]

“There’s no such thing as fossils.”

...fossils were created!