A couple of old bones which cause a revision of an evolutionary timeline model (about which species coexisted with which others when) do not “cast doubt on the theory of human evolution”.
All this discovery may mean is that instead of homo habilis being the ancestor of homo erectus the two species may share a common ancestor instead. This casts no doubt on the theory of human evolution itself, merely upon the way the branches of evolutionary adaptations that led to homo sapiens occurred. Refining a model to take account of new data is not the same as throwing away the entire theoretical framework.
Is a little, tiny, bit of scientific literacy too much to ask for?
Similar Posts:
- MSM vs Bloggers Smackdown: MSM still languishing in coma. by Lauredhel
- EvoPysch and “natural” attraction. by tigtog
- They still can’t tell a monkey’s arse from an ape’s elbow by tigtog
- Censoring evolution (this week, the Netherlands) by tigtog
- Ossified and doomed by tigtog
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments }
I heard that too, and did a double-take in my own mind. I eventually settled on the explanation that they meant it ‘cast doubt on the theory of how how humans have evolved’ rather than that it ‘cast doubt on the theory that humans have evolved’. There’s an ambiguity there…
I can see the ambiguity there Tim, but I expect better from so-called professional communicators.
Yes.
TH, HAD.
“Is a little, tiny, bit of scientific literacy too much to ask for?”
As Black Knight said — yes.
Simple answers to simple questions.
The cretinists don’t seem to have gotten the message. Not that I’m surprised.
Comments on this entry are closed. If you wish to re-open this discussion, please leave a comment on the latest Open Thread.