Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory

[cannabis]

Here is yet another example of how the theory of Evolution is going through evolution itself...It's always being shifted into different directions. What is presented in textbooks everywhere as fact regarding Evolution is constantly changing. Evolution cannot be considered all fact when different intended meanings and 'evidence' is being interchanged and contradictory despite Evolutions original publication in 1859? That's a pretty long time. So If theories backing up Evolution are continuously being "corrected", exactly how accurate and reliable can the whole of Evolution be considered? How far is correction going to go?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution _ that one of those species evolved from the other.

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

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. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

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.


For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.

Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."

Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree _ and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.

Because the Homo erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.

That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males _ something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=169&sid=1605557

After this complete reversal, how much faith will people place in this evolutionary assurance?




More on the subject:

1. BBC NEWS: “Finds test human origins theory”

Evolutionists are busy rewriting the story of the evolution of humankind, reports the BBC’s James Urquhart. Two hominid fossils from Kenya have prompted the revisions, which entail a new hypothesized evolutionary relationship between Homo habilis and Homo erectus, as claimed in the journal Nature.

Until these recent revelations, Homo habilis was believed by evolutionists to have been the direct predecessor of Homo erectus; the latter was also considered the immediate predecessor of Homo sapiens. The latest evolutionary speculation, however, is that Homo habilis and Homo erectus were “sister species that overlapped in time” rather than successive members of the hominid sequence.

At the center of this revised account of human evolutionary history is what has been labeled the youngest specimen of Homo habilis ever found—or, to be more precise, a jawbone found in Kenya and “attributed to Homo habilis because of its distinctive primitive dental characteristics.” The broken maxilla was dated to approximately 1.44 million years ago.

Meanwhile, evolutionists have assigned to the Homo erectus category a skull comparable in size to those of Homo habilis. The BBC explains that, despite its diminutiveness, the skull belongs in the Homo erectus category because it “displayed typical features of erectus such as a gentle ridge called a ‘keel’ running over the top of the jaw joint.” Scientists dated the skull to 1.55 million years old.

Of course, 1.55 million years is a bit larger than 1.44 million years, and thus, based on their own old-earth dating techniques—dating techniques that are as much assumption and convenience as science—these scientists were forced to acknowledge an overlap between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. This overlap, of course, severely (though not completely) undermines the hypothesis that the latter evolved from the former.

Why not “completely”? Fred Spoor, a University College London professor of developmental biology and coauthor of the Nature paper, throws out one hypothesis:

“It’s always possible that Homo habilis lived, let’s say, 2.5 million years ago and then in another part of Africa, away from the Turkana basin, an isolated population evolved into Homo erectus. [...] But that is a much more complex proposition,” Professor Spoor explained, “the easiest way to interpret these fossils is that there was an ancestral species that gave rise to both of them somewhere between two and three million years ago.”
So, in other words, the “easiest” way to interpret the discovery is that the story of human evolution as presented in books, museums, and classrooms for decades is wrong according to evolutionists themselves! The question is, then, after such reversals, does the ordinary individual view with any greater skepticism evolutionists’ stock teaching? For example, after this complete reversal, how much faith will people place in this evolutionary assurance:

The fossil record indicates that modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from Homo erectus.
Sadly, it seems that even these substantial revisions in the evolutionary story are quickly recast as the irrefutable, unchallengeable “facts” to be presented in books, museums, and classrooms. In fact, the AP version of the story strives to allay fears that these continual upheavals undermine the tale of human evolution:

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.

It seems amazing that the authors of the work have to tell the reader how to interpret and not interpret their results; it’s as if they are saying, “Because we are obviously smarter than you, you can only see these results the way we want you to.” Furthermore, if evolutionary science is truly “self-testing,” then why is evolution itself somehow beyond this testing? The more evidence comes to light that the story of evolution is—just that—a story, the more evolutionists do everything but test the theory. Anton is right in one regard, however. Historical science is not like religion (especially materialism masquerading as historical science): historical science that excludes God depends upon the limited, fallible understanding of humans, whereas biblical Christianity depends upon the accurate, reliable, eye-witness account given by the One who was actually there.

2. BBC News: “Ancient microbes ‘revived’ in lab”

Microbes thought by some to be as old as eight million years are now alive and well (along with their progeny) in a lab at Rutgers University, reports the BBC. Recovered from Antarctica, the microbes were melted out of five samples of glacial ice that have been dated with old-earth methods to as “recent” as 100,000 years before present and as old as the aforementioned eight million years. Of course, we happen to disagree with the unbiblical, uniformitarian assumptions that prop up such dating methods.

So what’s the point of this Frankensteinian project, whose details appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Well, first, it’s portrayed as an omen of what a global warm-up could “unleash”:

The findings raise the possibility that ancient bugs, long frozen in ice, will return to life as climate change causes the glaciers to melt, flushing their genetic material into the oceans.
However, experts say this process has been going on for billions of years, and is unlikely to cause human disease.
(If you haven’t read Answers in Genesis’ cautionary view on global warming, be sure to visit Michael Oard’s Global Warming.)

But perhaps more interesting is the researchers’ conclusion that the bugs’ resuscitation has put a freeze on the “life came from space” idea, known as panspermia to astrobiologists:

The team suggests that because DNA in the old ice samples had degraded so much in response to exposure to cosmic radiation, life on Earth is unlikely to have hitched a ride on a comet or on debris from outside the Solar System—as some scientists have suggested.
Despite the discovery, scientists—such as study coauthor David Marchant of Boston University—haven’t given up on the “life in space” idea:

“The other thing that’s interesting about this is the connection to Mars. There’s near-surface ice on Mars where the surface landform looks identical to what you’ll see in [Antarctica’s] Beacon Valley.”
So, while still eager at the prospect of extraterrestrial life, evolutionary scientists are now faced with research by some of their own that contradicts the panspermia hypothesis. For more information about life in or from space, see our Get Answers: Alien Life and UFOs.

3. National Geographic News: “Photo in the News: Rare Fossil Trees Found in Hungary”

“Eight million years old” seems to be the most popular age of major discoveries this week; in addition to Antarctic microbes, fossilized trees in northeastern Hungary have been found recently that are part of an “eight-million-year-old swamp cypress forest.”

National Geographic News describes the 16 trees as an “oddity” because “they did not petrify, or turn to stone, as preserved trees usually do [but instead,] retain[ed] their original wood.”

While National Geographic News did not publish any significant details on the find (presumably because it is a new discovery and has not yet been studied in detail by paleontologists), the idea of eight-million-year-old wood certainly raises an eyebrow. In fact, the find reminds us of another “incredible” fossil find: the allegedly 65-million-year-old T. rex soft tissue found a few years back.

Now, as then, old-earthers are forced to stand behind uniformitarian doctrine and dating methods, despite their shock at the find, rather than letting their whole house of cards topple.

4. LiveScience: “New Fossils Support Deep-Sea Origin of Life”

If eight-million-year-old microbes and trees weren’t enough, though, what about 1.43-billion-year-old fossilized habitats of deep-sea microbes? LiveScience’s Dave Mosher reports this week on supposedly ancient black smoker chimneys—naturally occurring, microbial-housing chimneys that are, interestingly enough, nearly identical to the “archaea- and bacteria-harboring structures found today on sea beds.”

For no apparent reason other than their supposed age, Timothy Kusky, a Saint Louis University geologist, believes these chimneys “offer ‘tantalizing suggestions’ that life developed near deep-sea hydrothermal vents and not in shallow seas, as other evidence hints.”

Of course, there seem to be several problems with Kusky’s hypothesis. First and foremost, of course, is the old-earth dogma used to date the chimneys; the proverbial rug would be pulled out from under Kusky’s feet if the chimneys were “only” half their supposed age, let alone as young as the Bible indicates.

Secondly, the article seems to clumsily conflate the existence of these chimneys with the existence of life to inhabit them. For example, the article explains:

Black smoker chimneys develop at submerged openings in the Earth’s crust that spew out mineral-rich water as hot as 752 degrees Fahrenheit (400 degrees Celsius). Bacteria that don’t depend on sunlight or oxygen move into the fragile chimneys that grow around the vents and feed on the dissolved minerals.
Yet the article gives no indication that fossils of the actual microbes themselves are left; merely of these chimneys: “‘These are remnants of the oldest living types of life forms on the planet,’ said Timothy Kusky[.]” Jumping to conclusions about the life in such chimneys would seem to be driven more by presuppositions than by actual science.

Finally, and as the article points out, this discovery goes against other evolutionary ideas for the origin of life—that it developed in shallow waters, in dome-shaped clumps of bacteria called stromatolites.

Thankfully, geologist and American Museum of Natural History (New York) curator Ed Mathez unrealizingly sums up the vacancy of evolutionists’ ideas for the natural origin of life on earth:

“They tell us life existed that long ago, but as to where it originated remains an open question,” Mathez said.
Mathez pointed out that black smoker fossils are just as inconclusive about the origin of life, but added that the new finding significantly pushes back the known reign of deep-sea microbes.
It seems evolutionists continue to say something to the effect of, “We don’t know exactly how it happened, nor exactly when, nor exactly where, except that it was without God’s help, it was a very long time ago, and it wasn’t in any Garden of Eden”!

[fearthebug]

i think it's safe to say that those who believe in evolution do not believe that every single person alive on the planet today came from 1 monkey.

[cannabis]

Is that really your argument and all you have to say about the thread??

Anyway, not my point. And the same can be said for any belief system, philosophy etc.

[fearthebug]

Originally Posted by cannabis

Is that really your argument and all you have to say about the thread??

Anyway, not my point. And the same can be said for any belief system, philosophy etc.

what i got from it was that instead of A -> B (one evolving into the other), it that maybe A and B lived together and the two different ones might have mated with one another at some point, and that together with gene mutations being spread throughout this "new" (or 'evolved') species. the best from both came together as one and became something new.

however, i could counter with a few statements about debunking beliefs.

1. how would you accept these fossils as fact since it shows two different types beings living together instead of changing into the other? the bible says there was adam and eve. but then again, god killed everyone except for moses and all the animals, so we really don't descend from adam and eve. we're the "children of moses"

2. i thought that fossils were put here by the devil as a practical joke on all humans?



i'll have to read the 2nd part later. i did see answersingenesis being referenced, so i might not read it.

[Azimuthal]

The idea is that one group could splinter into two, carry out some natural change to suit their differing environments, and continue on living. This does not contradict evolution at all. Think about Darwin's finches, as a group they came to the island together, but split into smaller groups where differences between the birds helped them survive in different niches in the Galapagos. This is evidence of species with common ancestors living in close to each other.

Clearly, at many points in history, groups of humans have split up, moved away, changed separately, and inter-mixed. It's quite well accepted that Neanderthals and modern humans shared the land.

Just because evolution is sometimes displayed in a graphically linear fashion doesn't mean it is central to the theory.



Article 4 there is a bit misleading (4. LiveScience: Deep--Sea) The underwater vents are still a host to microbial life, so it's not surprising that fossils weren't reported.

[Medicine Al]

Absolutely, the notion of evolution has always had this probability, this simply provides more clear evidence of what has always been the most likely scenario for development. Competition, and intelligence gathering capabilities did the rest, separating the successors from the failed adaptations.

[metalstonerking]

I really dont wnat to sound like an asshole, but...

This is the stupidest fucking argument against evolution Ive ever witnessed.

"Hey guys, know the scientific method?"
"...yeah..?"
"Well, get this: EVOLUTION IS MAKING USE OF IT!"
"...ok..."
"DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ITS FAKE AHHHHHHH JESUS RULES!!!!!!!!!"

Or is that not what you're saying? Cause thats a whole lot of what it sounds like to me.

No shit it changes. Whereas we had Freudian psychology, we now have psychiatry/neuroscience. Thus: BRAIN SCIENCE. IS. A. MYTH.

Or, it underwent better change? Nahhh... I dont belive THAT for a second. How many times are we gonna let them update their stance before we realize the whole thing is a fabrication!

Oh, but Vatican 2 and that shit is totally cool.

[BMactoker]

I don't think this is neccessarily an argument against evolution, just a correction to the theory.
Obviously we don't have a perfect explanation for evolution and never will.
The evolutionary theory is also always evolving as more evidence is gathered and examined.
For someone opposed to evolutionary theory cannabis, you certainly picked an odd way to argue against it.

[Smigs]

Excellent post Cannabis!

[skywalker]

cannabis, the fact that they're making revisions says that they're concerned with accounting for every little detail and making sure the theory is as accurate as possible (which is more than I can say for some other group of people) That's how science works. Even Einstein didn't formulate his theory of relativity at once. It takes time to come up with that stuff, and in the case of evolution, something that has to do with every single living organism on the entire planet, you'd think it would be actually a difficult thing to get right on the first try... give Darwin a break. He's done far more than all of us here put together.. and he did it in the 19th century. How likely is it that a theory formulated in his time, as opposed to today with all our computers and supercomputers can go perfectly unchallenged? Darwin was good, but not that good.

[cannabis]

Originally Posted by fearthebug

however, i could counter with a few statements about debunking beliefs.

1. how would you accept these fossils as fact since it shows two different types beings living together instead of changing into the other? the bible says there was adam and eve. but then again, god killed everyone except for moses and all the animals, so we really don't descend from adam and eve. we're the "children of moses"

2. i thought that fossils were put here by the devil as a practical joke on all humans?



i'll have to read the 2nd part later. i did see answersingenesis being referenced, so i might not read it.

lol not surprising that instead of forming a legitimate argument you rather attempt to debunk Christianity. And you didn't even read the entire article...how sad
And above you claimed that I was grouping evolutionist into the same group, yet you did the same in that post in suggesting that all Christians disregard fossils as empirical evidence...I think it's safe to say every single Christian doesn't consider that.

Originally Posted by Azimuthal

The idea is that one group could splinter into two, carry out some natural change to suit their differing environments, and continue on living. This does not contradict evolution at all

Don't get me wrong Azimuthal, I'm not attempting to debunk the theory as a whole. I'm just pointing out flaws.

Originally Posted by metalstonerking

I really dont wnat to sound like an asshole, but...

This is the stupidest fucking argument against evolution Ive ever witnessed.

No offense dude, but claiming that without forming an actual argument is a pretty fucking ignorant way to respond.

"Hey guys, know the scientific method?"
"...yeah..?"
"Well, get this: EVOLUTION IS MAKING USE OF IT!"
"...ok..."
"DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ITS FAKE AHHHHHHH JESUS RULES!!!!!!!!!"

As I posted elsewhere, I'm familiar with the scientific method and I'm not entirely against Evolution. That is a pathetic attempt of making me appear delusional man.

No shit it changes. Whereas we had Freudian psychology, we now have psychiatry/neuroscience. Thus: BRAIN SCIENCE. IS. A. MYTH.

sure but how well developed is neuroscience? People make it appear as every aspect of the brain is completely understood. And that's clearly not the case when brain disorders and diseases continue to remain uncured and questioned about. And new research and information is continuously being discovered regarding the brain and neurology.

Originally Posted by BMactoker

For someone opposed to evolutionary theory cannabis, you certainly picked an odd way to argue against it.

Again, I'm not completely opposed to evolutionary theory, how many times do i have to repeat myself? you people automatically assume whenever someone questions a part of the theory that individual is skeptical of the whole of evolution. And why? Because you're faithful that evolution is all truth.

Originally Posted by skywalker

cannabis, the fact that they're making revisions says that they're concerned with accounting for every little detail and making sure the theory is as accurate as possible (which is more than I can say for some other group of people) That's how science works. Even Einstein didn't formulate his theory of relativity at once. It takes time to come up with that stuff, and in the case of evolution, something that has to do with every single living organism on the entire planet, you'd think it would be actually a difficult thing to get right on the first try... give Darwin a break. He's done far more than all of us here put together.. and he did it in the 19th century. How likely is it that a theory formulated in his time, as opposed to today with all our computers and supercomputers can go perfectly unchallenged? Darwin was good, but not that good.

I understand where you're coming from bro, but evolutionist make it appear as the theory is the as all end all facts of the universe and it totally debunks all religion and opposing theories indefinantly. And that's false.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by cannabis

but evolutionist make it appear as the theory is the as all end all facts of the universe and it totally debunks all religion and opposing theories indefinantly

Really? I do not think that evolution debunks religion, and I have never met someone who agrees with evolution who thought that way. So, I do not know where you are coming from.

[Azimuthal]

There's no flaw here, what's described is just a part of evolution. The names given to species that existed in the times described are just guesses, the fossil record is very incomplete.

[Liquidtruth]

I just had to respond to the following, it does not touch upon the article as such, I did not feel that was needed, but I think what I have to