Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

PJ Media ^ | JUNE 29, 2018 | John Ellis

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.

One of the constants of science is that science is constantly revising as it is challenged by new data, new theories, and new ways of observing and measuring data, not to mention the changes in scientific ideology molded by larger worldview shifts. Thomas Kuhn's landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions provides a compelling argument for how scientific paradigms evolve, shift, and even jump to completely different tracks. However, within the many disciplines of science, evolution and evolutionists have remained dogmatic about the necessity of remaining committed to certain a priori assumptions. Well, as it turns out, some of evolution's most revered a priori assumptions are now crumbling in the face of new research.

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could."

The study's very own author was so disturbed by how the conclusions challenged current scientific dogma that he "fought against it as hard as [he] could." His "fight" gives credence to the study's conclusions. His eventual acceptance, not to mention publication, of the conclusions speaks well of Thaler's commitment to being a scientist first and an ideologue second.

[elbook]

Why is it really changing any ‘dogma’ (if that definition even applies)?

Evolution says things (species/whole ecosystems) change/adjust to meet environmental change and also refine efficiencies/robustness/flexibility over time.

So, if there were DRASTIC environmental changes which cause many existing species to lose their adapted environments then they would die off/mutate and be replaced buy ones better suited to the new environment. The ice ages were likely such drastic changes.

AND if the environment actually become less stable (in constant flux) then species who are more flexible/general in their abilities have an advantage, and thus likely increase, while other less flexible/specialized species lose out.

---

I recall some nightly news talking head 40 years ago declaring ‘DARWIN WAS WRONG!!!’ and then explained that some evidence about some ‘evolution’ had been found indicating fast changes instead of over a looooong time. It was a stupid statement because Darwin’s biggest point REALLY was that Evolution happens, and how fast or slow or frequent was just quibbling about details.

[YogicCowboy]

Intraspecies adaptation does not equal extraspecies evolution.

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

Cheetahs are the best example that I’ve heard of too.

[huldah1776]

I have always loved genetics. Thanks for sharing.

[Pelham]

Lysenkoism! the Vanguard of Evolution. Or was that Revolution? I forget.

[donna]

DUANE EDDY -”Because They’re Young” (1960)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHfFESFr5qA

[donna]

Hmm, how did that happen?

[Blueflag]

You bet.