Evolutionists theory questioned, what do you say about the evidence found?

Question

This is why I think the theory of evolution should not be taught in school. Darwin had no scientific data to support his theories. Here is a link from Yahoo news about this latest findings

I am interested in all opinions, but please be respectful to others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

Did you see this in the religious section? I didn't think so. I am interested in the scientific opinions, please. This was what I was saying about being respectful.

Not disproving anything in the article, just interested in a educated opinion from you, please.

So far, Sandy G. has made the most educated response. I applaud you.

I do want you to all know I am not giving thumbs down on this question to answerers. This is a discussion that I am very interested in. I do think the theory of evolution if not updated is obsolete and new evidence needs to be used.

Robert, good point. Every species has gone through evolution.

Brian L. Your insightful input is so on the mark. It is a continous self-testing process. Science is continually discovering new data every day.

Secretsauce. I did not say we should disprove Darwin's theory, only that we should not use his theory for the bible for evolution.

I do not believe in Creationalism being taught in schools.

Answer 1

I agree with you. The evolutionary theory has too many holes, but still, it is being taught in school. Why teach something that is just as controversial as religion being taught in school? Darwin just made something up to give himself and others with his mind set an explanation for the extinction and creation of organisms. What I find funny also is that science is trying to prove the evolutionary theory not create a new one, even though the evolutionary theory was created by a science that is now obsolete. I have to say, the creation theory is more likey.

Answer 2

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

...Iconic is the keyword there. This is the popular and stereotypical belief in evolution. This is what people print on t-shirts. Trust me, the actual theory of evolution probably wouldn't fit on a t-shirt.

Besides, this is old news. It is already known that two different types of humans existed at the same time. It's not too shocking, really, because it all has to do with the environment. Animals and humans alike change and adapt to their environment. Albiet, the process takes thousands and thousands of years, but if these tribes existed in two separate environments, it's not so surprising that they are strikingly different.

However, this does not unravel the theory of evolution. Nor does this prove that it shouldn't be taught in school. In fact, if there was a criteria that any scientific field that inaccurately assumed something isn't to be taught in school... well, there'd be very little science taught at all.

Scientists are learning new things every day, in every field. What was thought to be right one day could be proven wrong the next. Nothing is rock solid (not even gravity! It's only considered a law because of the countless experiments that have produced the same results.. however, there is a possibility that it can be wrong. A small possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.)

That's why almost everything in science has been labelled a theory. At any time, it can be proven wrong, and every single scientist is taught to accept this.

And besides, if we're going to start saying that things need to be proven completely in order to be taught, why should Creationism be taught in schools? What merit does it have? I mean, take science away from schools, fine. But to be fair, you'd have to take religion out too.

Answer 3

Actually I am surprised that someone would actually use a proof of evolution as some half baked argument against it. All this shows is that mutated, more "evolved" species can coexist, at least for some time, with the ancestor species; it simply means that the "more evolved" ones did not drive the other to extinction right away.
And Darwin had plenty of data; that is how he came up with his model: because the data showed it.

To add to your comment as an answer to secretsauce: no one, no respectful scientist would use Darwin's theory as being the "bible" (supremely ironic as the bible only has an allegoric value, not a factual one). It is a FRAMEWORK that gets tweaked each time new data comes in. And no recent data has shaken the foundation of evolutionism; all that happened is that some furniture has been moved around slightly.

Answer 4

You should read this quote from the article:
"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 self-testing process."

Darwin is not the end all be-all of evolutionary theory. He is the ORIGINATOR of the theory. Evolution, however, is heavily-tested, strongly supported by evidence, and is above all easily tracked in a variety of methods, not the least of which involve very complex mathematical equations.

Evolution is real. In this case, all we are looking at is a muddying of the waters. At no point does anything in this article refute the idea that humans arose from a proto-human ancestor, or that that proto-human ancestor shared a common ancestor with modern apes.

At no point does anything in this article refute the idea of evolution. What it DOES do is suggest that H. habilis and H. erectus are not linearly related.

Read more about how evolution is studied below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Look, here's the thing: The Theory of Evolution is not "full of holes" as another poster put it. It's not perfect, sure. But it's a constantly-studied field, and it is constantly studied by all sorts of very intelligent people in a variety of ways. Evolution, as a process, is backed up by many fields of study: biology, molecular genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, paleontology, and geology ALL have a hand in examining the movement, survival, and extinction of species.

Science is not about being right. That's something that seems to escape a lot of people. Science is about studying, examining, and re-evaluating what we think we know. Science is about knowledge, and exists outside of the realm of politics.

Answer 5

Did you read anything more than the headline?

**** Read the article! ****

For example, it says: "And it [the discovery] further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man."

YES!!! Scientists have been saying this for *decades*. Stephen Jay Gould wrote and spoke against that ridiculous *linear* image of human evolution over and over ... the awful "marching man" image. It's one of the main themes of many of my posts ... branching, branching, branching.

Regardless of what you think of Darwin's evidence, how can you possibly think that this is seen by scientists as *questioning* or *weakening* Darwin's theory itself? It is a new piece of evidence that refines our model of early human evolution. It strengthens the picture with additional data ... it does not weaken it.

Look ... you seem like a nice person ... and people do need to be respectful. But when you enter a science section with the headline "Evolutionists theory questioned" you are walking into the room with an attack. (The word "evolutionist" is not respectful ... it is used as an insult by creationists to accuse scientists and supporters of evolution of subscribing to a non-scientific 'religion' called 'evolutionism' ... it does not offer the respect that we accept evolution on purely scientific grounds.) When you then follow it up with "This is why I think the theory of evolution should not be taught in school." you are again attacking. If all you wanted was our opinion, you could have asked your question without that hostile statement.

So if you want respectful, informative opinions, you might want to try a respectful question.

Answer 6

****DRINKS*****

If you read the article you would have seen that it states the finding do not disprove evolution but rather give us new understanding of human evolution. The Theory(fact) does not say the linage of what species evolved when and from what. The theory(fact) just says how it happened.


Edit-How is Evolution so contraversial if the SCIENTIFIC community all believe in it??? Its being taught in a science class remember. People like you are the ones who make it so contraverial.

Answer 7

These new findings are another wrinkle in the details of human evolution. They in no way put a dent in the theory of evolution itself.

You correctly state that Darwin did not have a lot of evidence for his theory, but everything that has been discovered in biology, molecular biology, and genetics in the more than 150 years since Darwin supports the theory of evolution and provides overwhelming evidence for it.

Darwin knew nothing of the large numbers of hominid fossils that have been discovered in East Africa. Everything discovered there supports the fact that humans evolved from hominids that evolved from ape-like primates. The story is convoluted and complex and when anything new is discovered it has to be fitted into a coherent, and continuously revised story of human evolution, which is what these researchers with their new findings are doing.

Answer 8

READ THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

The theory isn't being questioned...if anything it's made stronger by the fossil evidence. If you don't understand the science thats your problem but lets not mess up my kids science class just because you don't get it.

Answer 9

name any plant or animal that has shown any evolution over the past thousands of years of recorded history.

Answer 10

well it is called a theory
that's all i well say since you ask to be respectful and i will listen to the host request