Do evolutionists owe Christians an apology now?

Question

What with the new evidence and all.

Who has egg on their face now?

I'm sorry I don't have the link. It'll be on the news. Scientists have "discovered" that man did not 'evolve' from apes but that early man and early apes developed simutaneously and lived along side each other.
That's essentially the gist of it.

I see the evolutionists scrambling to regroup.

I'm going to put this question to a vote to see which insult the evolutionists like best. LOL

Answer 1

Your characterization of the article as saying that 'man did not evolve from apes' is COMPLETELY innacurate. Did you even READ the article? The findings described in the article have no impact whatsoever on the 'Theory of Evolution'... what it does is IMPROVES our understanding of the particular evolutionary pathways that culminated in humanity. This is a GOOD thing.

Here are a few things that it is important to understand...

* DNA DOES NOT evolve... it experiences mutations.

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time).

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The 'Theory of Evolution' provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... the 'comic book' version of science and evolution.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." ~ Carl Sagan (regarding religion)

For those that say that evolution does not account for new species... nonsense. Examples abound, both in the 'world' and in the laboratory. One of the most interesting examples, and the most enlightening, has to do with a kind of bird (plovers, if my memory is correct) that occupies adjacent habitats all the way from Siberia to Britain. Because of environmental differences in these adjacent habitats (topology, food availability, competitor species, predators, vegetation), natural selection has produced genetic differences between the populations in these adjacent habitats. Birds in adjacent habitats can still mate with each other, and produce offspring... the genetic differences are small. However, the birds from the Eastern-most reaches of Siberia CAN NOT produce offspring with those from Britain. Over the reach of MANY habitats, the accumulation of genetic differences makes them a DIFFERENT SPECIES... much to the consternation of biologists who are involved with trying to classify the danged critters.

Your question reveals that the foolishness that serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect and reasoning powers. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'.

'Faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence.

'Belief' (the internalized 'certainty' that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality) is a substitute for knowledge... i.e., the ILLUSION of knowledge.

faith + belief = self-delusion and willful ignorance

****************
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin
****************
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GxA8_NIxQZc

Answer 2

You must be referring to the recent discover of a hominid skull by Ms Leakey that appears to have lived during the same time period as another similar but separate species.

Once again your head is up your butt when it comes to human evolution. The existence of several hominid species is nothing more remarkable than the coexistence of Neanderthals with modern humans. It's apparent you didn't bother to read anything but the headline, in true christian manner.

Dope.

Answer 3

i believe the 'evidence' you are referring to was the recent discovery that 2 separate species of hominids--one thought to have evolved from the other-actually co-existed for a time. it was these species that are believed to have evolved into homo erectus or modern human beings as we know them today.
while it does cast doubt on exactly how humans evolved it is in no way a declaration against the existence oh evolution altogether.
you really should have paid more attention to the article. i included a link so you can read it again.

Answer 4

Many Christians do accept evolution and other scientific findings.

Do you mean that the findings that homo habilis and homo erectus might have lived at the same time for a period of about 500,000 years 1,500,000 years ago? While that fits just fine with evolutionary theory, it doesn't work at all with Creationism. But I'm not waiting for an "oops, we were wrong again" from Creationists. I'm a realist.

Answer 5

The new evidence? That article does nothing to disprove evolution, it merely refines the theory in the same way Einsteinian physics refined Newtonian physics.

You see science thrives on refiniement because it is never so arrogant as to believe it has THE final answer on anything. All scientific propositions are tentative.

Answer 6

What new evidence? The news article? Apparently you did not read the complete article. It did nothing but support the FACT that evolutionary science is an ongoing process.

Answer 7

actually scientists in maximum situations are no longer greatly surprised and applauding this. It purely provides to medical wisdom. that is an thrilling medical locate that provides to what we already comprehend approximately evolution. In fairly some methods the actuality that human evolution became into extra chaotic lends much extra credence to evolution. between the themes scientists had with it became into that it regarded somewhat too linear. i assume Susan Anton has you pegged... "Susan Anton, a brand ny college anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey artwork, suggested she expects anti-evolution proponents to snatch on the recent study, yet suggested it would be a mistake to objective to apply the recent artwork to coach flaws in evolution theory. "it is not thinking the assumption in any respect of evolution; it somewhat is refining many of the particular factors," Anton suggested. "it somewhat is a great occasion of what technological expertise does and faith would not do. it somewhat is a continous self-sorting out technique."" ---- "What i'm asking you is whether or no longer the faculties are going to proceed to coach evolution AS a faith like they did while i became into there" actually that wasn't even close to to what you asked. yet once you're somewhat attracted to faculties coaching the latest technological expertise why no longer become in contact on your interior reach college? Having been on a school board in the previous i will inform you the #a million ingredient that retains the latest technological expertise out of colleges is parents. #2 is funds.

Answer 8

There was no new evidence. No one but creationists have claimed that speciation requires the exinction of the primary species.

The only people who see "new evidence" are people who believe that we can't be related to monkeys because there are monkeys...or as we call them, idiots.

Answer 9

I find out that most people will believe and make excuses for whatever they believe. Very few will be quickened to changes when the truth presents itself. Look how big Jesus was/is in the time that he was a man walking on this earth. How many followed Him. Not many.

Answer 10

Ahhh Haaaa! Take that Darwin!

What new evidence?

*drink*

OMG! If anything that article PROVES the point. What were your reading comprehension scores on the SAT?

Answer 11

Please provide a link to this new evidence so that I can see it and decide for myself whether to apologise or not.

An atheist (evolutionist)