Fossils challenge old evoluton theory?

Question

Im was just reading the news on yahoo today and this came up. feel free to read and tell me what you think:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

Answer 1

It doesn't disprove anything about evolution. It does suggest that one theory of how humans evolved may be incorrect, but if you read the the article, and the original reports the article is based on, you will quickly understand that they were using a sensationalisation of the headline to pull in readers, and that the theory isn't really disproven, it just needs modification.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have horses, donkeys and zebras alive right now either.

The Theory of Plate Techonics was considered incorrect for ages, until it was proven.

----
Last night I did a little checking. This discovery may disprove one of the many theories on how mankind evolved, but it may well help to prove another one of the theories.

Good isn't it?

Answer 2

We already heard about this yesterday. For some reason, religious people are gloating and seem to think this automatically means "god did it" when it doesn't.

My answer is... so what? This is the nature of science. It only neccesitates a change in the existing written information. It means nothing other than being quite interesting.

Oh yes... just to tell you it doesn't disprove evolution in any way. It gives more proof that its correct.

Answer 3

This quote FROM THE ARTICLE says it all, I think:

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous [sic] self-testing process."

Answer 4

The fossils don't challenge the theory. They simply reveal the complexity of evolution. This isn't a surprise to scientists.

Answer 5

This is good news. It means that the human ancestral record is getting clearer. That's the beauty of science: By nature, science adapts its theories to new information.

As opposed to religious ideas, which refuse to adapt even when proven mistaken.

Answer 6

Meh.

Seen it, been there, done that.
Learnt that during my Palaeobiology degree at University College London.

The fact that one branch of the tree happens to be separate from and not rooted in another doesn't really mean much in the larger scheme of things.... and certainly doesn't imply anything different about the modus operandum of evolution as a whole.

Answer 7

The main problem with this article seems to be the poor understanding of the author. Our family tree has been known to have many dead branches for a long time. Only those misled by ignorance or creationists assume that human evolution was a straight line.

Answer 8

Look up Homo-Ergaster. It appears now that humans evolved in a family tree type pattern with thousands of parallel branches. Some branches lead to new branches and other branches just died out like the Neanderthals.

Answer 9

Nothing new.
Every time a "new find" is discovered, evolutionists
scramble to accommodate it in their theory. Now we are supposed to believe that the evolutionary tree is really more like an evolutionary bush.
Whether they realize it or not, when the bush theory is taken to its logical conclusion they will realize that all the species lived at the same time, but did not mingle'n'mix.

Sounds a lot like Creationism!
And THAT'S a truth that can set them free!

Answer 10

The fossils only challenge our knowledge of our particular ancestry and force us to change the model. That's a good thing.

The article in no way disproves evolution. In fact it proves it even more.