The evolution theory.?

Question

is having trouble again. Look like it is time for me to come up with a better theory or method than this scientists. What do your think.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070809/ap_on_sc/human_evolution;_ylt=AsVgc6kR2JmxbM1mla7VmshvieAA

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html

Answer 1

Several ppl have indicated that "Near of DN" did not read the article, and to be honest He should have been more clear on his view of this topic... I think it does suggest some possible alternatives. "The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens"

Considering that they have found Habilis and Erectus dating from the same time period, it is also possible that Sapiens could have lived at this same time? Personally, I think debates like Creationism vs Evolution only help to create division, and promote Atheistic views, as it is obvious that evolution does occur, and if believers are wrong on this point, then they must be wrong about everything else right? As a believer, I tend to lean more towards a combination of the 2. I do believe in God and creationism, but isnt it possible that the time that it took to create Man, although a blink of an eye to HIM, was in fact Hundreds of Thousands if not Millions of years to us?

Answer 2

Boy, are you Off-Base!

Did you Read this?

Basic Darwinism: Species try different Mutations, and the Best Survive. It shoots Holes in the Idea of 1-2-3 Lineage, like some Think. Subspecies that might have Inter-reproduced, like Species do all the time. Some might have Lived at the same Time is NOT a New Idea, and only a Poor Biologist would Think that way.

Now-Where did I read a Linear Record off all Human Existence? I read some Book, it was a Good Book, that traces History back in a straight line, but Doesn't explain where Dark Skin, Blue Eyes, or Straight Hair entered the Genetic mix.

Unfortunately, the Opponents of Evolution like to find Holes in the Theory, and say it's in Trouble.....The THEORY...it's an Idea, not a Universal Truth! It is Open to Testing, and Reinterpretations based on New Data. There is No Cemetery, No Birth Certificates, No Wallchart that lists all Ancestors to Modern Humans....They have to be Found by what is Left to Find, Salvage and Interpret.

The Best Scientist knows ONLY One Thing......Only God knows Everything.

Answer 3

Description and prediction

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

I love science, except when the controlling forces of money dictate and distort the outcome of honest science.
What do I mean? The worst case of scientific apostasy these days, is to me, the pharmaceutical sciences. How so? Because, their research is based on the bottom line of profit. So, it is always in their best interest to 'treat' an illness rather than cure it. A person cured, is not going to continue needing your services. But a person 'treated', can become a lifelong customer.
Seems to me, that the pharmaceutical corporations are really just legal drug dealers. And they would prefer to have life long addicts.

Answer 4

One day you guys are going to develop some reading comprehension skill and the world will come to an end.

This does not put the theory of evolution in doubt. All it means is that a few branches are re-arranged.

From the article: 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 self-testing process."

Answer 5

Do you have the slightlest idea about what Science is?

It is the attempt to build models to explain the natural world without resorting to magical thinking. Whenever new data arrives it is a happy day for science (unlike for religion) because now there is a chance to improve the model.

Evolution Marches Onward and Upward !!!

Answer 6

This is officially added to the list of drinking questions for at least the next two weeks.

Yes, in science we can add to or adapt our explanation of things when new evidence comes to light. Great! We discovered a variation in how we thought humans evolved. Where is the conflict there?

And with your spelling and grammar skills, I think I'll stick with the scientists.

Thx.

Answer 7

Trouble? Did you bother to read 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.' "

Answer 8

You weren't clever enough to read the WHOLE article were you sparky?
Go ahead and do that now and then come back and tell the class where you jumped to conclusions.
In case you won't (and I highly doubt it) I'll help you a bit.
Class, sparky here assumes that more information will shake the foundations of the Science of Evolution. Let's give Sparky here his dunce cap and let him thing about this for a while shall we?

Answer 9

I am a creationist and don't even hold much merit to that argument against evolution. They would have to co-exist (for at least some amount of time) before the lesser adapted species went extinct.

Answer 10

Yeah, this discovery adds to the theory of evolution. It doesn't disprove it. Science is changing and evolving. It's not stagnant.
Next time, read the entire article.