What do you guys think this article does to evolution?

Question

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

This isn't a typical "Windom Earle" post so don't expect to laugh. (Unless you're laughing at me.)

Aren't all the supporters of evolution glad that we don't dogmatically adhere to our beliefs? Personally, I think it's so cool that we can believe in a theory that allows for modification based on new pieces of evidence.

It's also really cool that an article like this can support evolution while simultaneously improving the theory. I'm glad that we can use new pieces of evidence to make our scientific theories more accurate.

Apparently, some people think this is a flaw of science. Does anybody who believes that is so care to explain how that works? Because I don't understand how modification is a flaw.

Answer 1

I am not at all surprised. I never accepted the idea that evolution was a simple developmental process. Mother Nature is a lot of great things, but she is not very tidy in her methods. Our family tree is a tree shape indeed, not a simple line.

Answer 2

I think it merely modified the theory, here's a quote from the article you gave:

"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 continuous self-testing process.""

Thanks for sharing the new information about this discovery ;-).

Answer 3

There are no flaws in scienctific advancements, the flaws are in people that believe science is all there is and that... "someday science will be able to explain everything" - that is a flawed statement. Science cannot explain itself. What started science? science didn't create science. I might as well say I created me.

Now when I say "science", I also mean "matter" - because as soon as matter came into the picture there was science at work. So science will never be able to explain itself into existence, and matter will never be able to show the origin of matter. And seeing as how everything is made up of matter, nothing will ever be able to show the origin of matter.

Scientific discovery and modifying outdated theories is not a flawed method, that is the only way science can operate. If it was a mistake to modify incorrect theories than we would never advance in our knowledge of the universe. The flaw lies with people putting all they're marbles in the basket of science. There must be an explination bigger than science and outside the boundaries of science, otherwise science itself (or matter) is an impossibility. Because science will never be able to tell us how science originated. To be able to explain science and the existence of matter you would have to reach outside of science to do so.

Again, I could not use myself as an explination for how I was created. I need to go outside of myself for answers, which is where my parents come into play.

Answer 4

Anyone who believed that evolution meant things evolve in a stright line must be doing dope, or be one.

Evolutionary theory is based on the idea of incremental ("evolutionary") change, not revolutionary change.

In fact, it is more sensible to think that our ancient ancestors intermingled and that changes came with time.

Sorta like how the human race continues to intermingle and create humans that are of mixed race while other humans who are genetically of the original races still exist at the same time.

Answer 5

Personally, I think it means we're one step closer to understanding our background and origins as a species.

Its silly that many creationists think this article supports their beliefs. Not only does it suggest that the earth is, in fact, much older than a few thousand years, but it suggests that there were several different *kinds* of humans walking the earth simultaneously. How do we determine which one was created in god's image?

Instead of debunking evolution, this discovery is adding one of the missing puzzle pieces.

Answer 6

‘Palaeoanthropologists seem to make up for a lack of fossils with an excess of fury, and this must now be the only science in which it is still possible to become famous just by having an opinion. As one cynic says, in human palaeontology [the study of fossils] the consensus depends on who shouts loudest.’
J.S. Jones, Department of Genetics and Biometry, University College, London, in a book review. Nature, Vol. 345, May 31, 1990, p. 395.

Answer 7

Modification of a theory to accommodate new evidence is how science works. It isn't religion where people assume they know absolute truth and are unwilling to accept any evidence that might challenge their viewpoint.

Answer 8

I suppose their thinking is that if it isn't right the first time, it won't be right at all. *shrug* or something like that.

Scientific discovery is indeed a wonderful thing. And scientists aren't afraid to say that they were wrong before. Unlike priests and religiosity.

Answer 9

Thanks! Its all about the changes and self-testing that makes science beautiful. Whether its through Karl popper's Falsification or Thomas Kuhn's Paradigm changes, the fact is that we allow ourselves to be corrected. To be Humbled! To avoid dogma!

The theists who go around saying that this is scientist coping out are honestly pathetic.

Answer 10

Yeah, god forbid that we ever change our minds about anything. God forbid that we actually take new information into account and modify our ideas. The reason "Christians" can't handle that idea is because their belief-system is supposed to be set-in-stone and true forever. Never mind that it dates mentally and morally to the Bronze Age.