News Flash: Evolutionists prove themselves wrong!?

Question

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2093001,00.html

Well, I found this article rather interesting.

First off, what entertained me the most is that a group of scientists has come forth and said that part of their theory of evolution was wrong... So some of the so called 'proof' that they had about how we evolved from a chimp-like species has changed (particularly the way we evolved in our walking).

AND the basis of their "proof" is simply watching the way orangutans walk around in trees. They spend a year watching orangutans and decide that was how we were millions of years ago...

Wacky way to prove something. All it proves to me is that orangutans walk a certain way.

As I have said on Y!A before, I don't dispute there is a type of 'evolution' (more like 'adapting')... BUT I have issues with the idea that we were apes/chimps/orangutans/etc.

Anyway, my point is.. They've say they proved their previous thoughts.. can more changes come?

Answer 1

That is a pretty minor detail. Historical behaviors are a lot more subject to speculation than phylogenies. The primate phylogeny is very strongly supported and a lot of evidence would be required to call it into question.

An analogy to what you're saying (that this somehow discounts evolution) would be to say, "we found shards of pottery in a Mayan city that predate the time we thought the city was founded, therefore, there were never any people in Mexico before 1900"

Answer 2

Listen very carefully. Science is always changing. Scientists disagree, they make small adjustments based on new evidence. They debate ideas. That's what makes science great, the ability to determine facts through discussion of the evidence.

The fact is we know how the human species evolved all the way down to the early bipedal monkey-people. There are some gaps between that and the lower primates who walk on their knuckles. The question isn't how we evolved, its why. What circumstances in the environment brought it about.

This new evidence doesn't "prove" anything accept that science is always looking for answers.

Answer 3

through fact the universe is chaotic, on maximum appropriate of being a cosmos. The regulations of physics are ordered, however the way count and skill will play upon those regulations isn't. warmth isn't distributed the two through fact no longer all chemical reactions ensuing in warmth being produced are of an identical magnitude. A meteor stepping right into a planet's ecosystem does no longer placed out as plenty warmth through fact the thermonuclear reaction of a megastar. Plus, warmth is a sort of skill, and skill converts into extremely some diverse varieties. finally, each and all of the skill (and count) interior the universe would be spread out flippantly and extremely thinly, yet 13 billion years is not any the place close to long adequate for that to take place. it's going to take some hundred billion years. till the enlargement of the universe spreads count/skill thinly adequate, warmth heavily isn't distributed flippantly. heavily, that's like asking "If i visit strengthen previous and die, why have not I completed so yet?" And this question has no longer something to do with evolution.

Answer 4

Ok then explain how there is PROOF that other species of humans existed... We have fossil evidence that several different yet really similar humans existed before and during the modern human time. Just like other creatures on this planet, there are different species and some have become extinct. It's about survival of the fittest. We learned to adapt and evolve and we lasted through the elements and changes in the environment. I are more like cousins to the monkeys not directly come from them.

Answer 5

I've noticed over the last twenty years that I keep up with evolution theories they can't seem to make up their minds about anything.

Every idea they have seems like a breakthrough then within a year they admit they screwed up they say they meant something else only to change that later also.

I gave up on the idea of evolution being a science a few years ago because they need to start being more professional about it instead of just coming up with whatever.

I wish some real scientists would research it and say yea or nay so we can move on. But science seems reluctant to truly investigate it for some reason.

Answer 6

Maybe you're confused on the nature of science. Science does not immediately get it right, and all things are subject to change [Like when we changed Gravity last century.]. I think you're expecting science to be able to get it right on the first try. The fact of the matter is that "Evolution," is still there, just a stage in it has been redefined.

Why is it so weird to do that with orangutan's? Thats what we have that'd be close to our ancesors.Do you whine when we use beef sides in seeing how bombs will affect our bodies?

Answer 7

Why are all "religionists" a bunch of intellectual slugs?

lol - anyway....

The fortunate thing about science is that with evidence theories can change and adapt and take the new eveidence into account. Eveidence NOT belief.

The problem with religion is that with evidence... religion strikes down the evidence - calls it "satan's work" and has pseudoscientists spout "false facts" to confuse the facts.
In addition, the "Don't look here look over there :: bait n switch" and "You will burn in hell" threat have worked pretty good for uneducated people. Fortunately for educated people these are the only things that "religionists" have to combat evidence that calls to question tenets of religion.

Answer 8

Evolution is real - deal with your issues.

Other researchers were more sceptical. "The main evidence is that our closest living relatives are not orang-utans, they're chimps and gorillas, and since both climb trees and walk on their knuckles, it's most likely our ancestors did that too," said Brian Richmond, an anthropologist at George Washington University.

Answer 9

we were never apes, chimps, or orangutans... we share a common ancestor. All that article proves is that scientists aren't afraid to admit when they think they were wrong, which is a good thing. They did not prove evolution wrong.

Answer 10

Congratulations! You just discovered an important difference between science and religion.

Science is willing to continually evaluate ideas and is willing to change as new information becomes available. This is called progress.

Religion will stick to its old preconceived notions regardless of any new facts that becomes available.

I always chuckle when a deist denigrates science because it is always changing.