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?
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.
[...] tale about conflicts of interest. Lawyers take note! tigtog catches SBS indulging in a bit of palaeontological illiteracy. She categorises it under ‘Pedantry’, but a fair point [...]
The cretinists don’t seem to have gotten the message. Not that I’m surprised.