This is almost too easy.
Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.
The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.
So you suddenly have some clear distinctions between the evolutionary paths of the human species, where before a linear and intrinsically linked sequential development had been held as near immutable for decades. Hey, you know the reason that it’s always been so hard to find that “missing link” guy? Because. Maybe. It. Was. Never. There.
They have 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.
Yes. Absolutely. Continue to insist dogmatically on a common ancestor, despite the fact there is, by your own admission, no actual physical evidence for it.
This is and will continue to be my biggest beef with the anti-creationists/acolytes of the Temple of Evolution. The hypocrisy. The foundational tenet of evolution is a common ancestry, out of which sprang the multi-varied species of our world through all that adapting and responding and evolving into more complex forms (in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Therefore, evidence is categorized and framed only within that frame of reference, because it must be in order for the theory to remain valid. Faced with two concurrently developing species, rather than sequentially as previously assumed (declared, heralded, decreed, whatever…), you therefore INFER an ancestor who existed even earlier than previous estimated, despite the lack of evidence, because it must be true if the theory is to remain viable.
You establish as “fact” that which must be true in order for your worldview to conform to your pre-established expectations, despite being unable to provide any evidence of it. And this is different from the creationists how?
Someone, somewhere, I believe, said that creationism would remain in the realm of religious faith and wishful thinking until the creationists/ID folks could provide solid scientific evidence of a creator or design influence. So, where does that put the evolutionist in light of this imaginary common ancestor which now MUST exist, where before it didn’t, and despite any “solid scientific evidence,” simply because evolutionary theorists demand it in order to preserve their
canon manifesto holy book St. Darwin of Galpagosea theory?
Ah, you poor misguided soul, they say as they sadly shake their collective heads with the long-suffering indulgence of a saint. The evidence for the common ancestor is clearly the two simultaneously developing offshoots, and if you weren’t such a wild-eyed, unscientific, Bible-thumping creationist, you’d be able to see that. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You know, despite the fact that previously the evidence for a common ancestor was a single, unbroken line of evolutionary development. Now, away with you, neophyte! Do YOU have a PHD? NO? Well then, trouble me no more with your plebian babblings.
I believe someone, somewhere called that “shifting the goalposts.” Another quote, in chuckling about those wacky creationists, said something to the effect of:
If a fossil is discovered to cover a gap between two species, they’ll shout – “Look, there are two gaps now, on either sides of the fossil”
Uh, yeah. And if a gap is discovered between two species, some people say, “Look, there must be a common ancestor we don’t know about 2 or 3 million years ago.” I can TOTALLY see the difference there.
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, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.
And yet that is what continues to be published in textbooks.
Scientists hadn’t looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.
Why? Because they needed an intermediate species to help fill gaps in the fossil record. And so in with an emphasis on supporting the prevailing meme, they failed to properly (read: objectively) analyze the information. Oooh. Ouch. MeOW.
All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.
Color me shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Let me translate: “Despite how completely this throws our understanding of evolutionary theory into a freakin chaotic mess, let’s make sure that we don’t abandon our fundamental premises. And make sure that we color these finds in shades of ‘refining’ evolutionary theory, rather than having to basically start over from scratch when it comes to human evolution.”
Again. Evidence can only be examined in the context of evolution. If the evidence rocks your world, you change your theory….of evolution. You come up with a new theory…of evolution. In the proudest tradition of the scientific method, you take a cold, calculating, objective look at the data, and smoosh the theory around until it fits the evidence, or you “interpret” the evidence to fit the theory. As long as the new shape still looks like evolution.
Because it’s the only game in town….and the people with the power to do so intend to make sure it stays that way.