So Evolution theory wasn't so correct after all?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

Answer 1

No, the simple linear drawing was incorrect.

What we classify as H. habilis is 2.5 to 1.5 million years old.  H. erectus lived between 1.8 and 1 million years ago.  The overlap was well known.  This disproves nothing.  Early H. habilis could give rise to both H. erectus and late H. habilis.

Each piece of data helps refine the picture.  Reviewing the partial list of fossils will show the overlaps.  The tree of life has had most of its branches pruned by extinction.

Answer 2

it is most unlikely that human ancestors existed in a vacuum - most likely there were many other v similar species - like monkeys today. Quite possible is that sub species split apart from each by eco niche and area and then even have remerged when again thrust into contact with eacah other - their genetics had not diverged enough to make offspring sterile.

Answer 3

NO.

Evolution is one of the Hugest 'Lies' from Satan and his Demons-helpers, if ever there was a Lie to be told

Never fall for that hog wash garbage.

We were *Created* from the descendants of Adam and Eve around 6000 years ago.

I mean think about it........

If Satan can make us think we Evolved from Apes,,, that would take us way way far from the Existance of GOD and His Created.

Remember, Satan 'hates' the GOD  of this universe so much.

Because GOD threw out Satan from Heaven when Satan wanted to be like God way back quadrillions of Eons of earth years ago.    

And since we are GOD's Creation  that Satan absolutely hates.....Satan put the Evolution therory into the minds of some humans, not knowing it's a big Lie.

Why would Satan want us humans to think we were Created by GOD when Satan can 'disrupt' GOD's plan by painting an Evolutionary Lie into us humans,,, just to get back at GOD for throwing him out of Heaven.

Answer 4

You obviously misread, or do not understand the article. The adjustments to theory go on all the time in science. Only creationist and their running dogs are absolutists.

In the article it said such changes should not be thought as undermining evolutionary theory. It is sad such a disclaimer is needed to forestall such questions as this. It did not work this time, obviously.

Answer 5

A simple deduction from a simple mind.

Answer 6

No.  The fact that human evolution is more complicated than originally thought does _not_ negate the entire theory.  That's like saying that all of our equations about gravity were wrong because you didn't realize that there was a strong wind blowing when you measured a falling rock.  The theory's sound; you just didn't have all the evidence.

Answer 7

NO... The link said nothing about homo sapien existing in that time period & in fact this article does nothing but add more support to evolution. We've simply found another piece of the puzzle that is drawing closer to completion every year.  Evolution is a fact, while creationism is a proven myth with absolutely no facts to support it.

We've found a large number of hominids existed in prehistory & have always known all but one were evolutionary dead ends. All evidence supports evolution & we are drawing ever closer to a complete picture of exactly how it happened.

Not being absolutely sure of exactly what gravity is & how it is activated or made by mass doesn't negate the fact that it is here.

Answer 8

I don't believe in it as much as I once did.  One reason is a little book I bought by Charles Darwin himself, titled HMS Beagle.  Reading his words I found every sentence he wrote, "not ringing true".  His conclusions on certain things looked like the result of 100 years study and testing and yet he arrived at these things in a matter of days.  I actually started feeling scared to read, like being in the presence of madness.

And then I read (much later) James Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow."  Now Hogan is a SciFi writer, but he is a trained engineer/scientist and he is fantastic at digging up and researching.  Also it should be noted that he was, at one time a staunch supporter of Darwin, but his research led him away.  He gives many examples which, to me anyway, cast doubt on an absolute swallowing of Darwin's.  

Evolution does, on the one hand seem to make sense, for certain short periods of time, but doesn't seem to be able to get by some of the fossil evidence and also the concept of irreducible complex systems like vision or even a single cell.

Answer 9

This alters the theory slightly, but the theory still states that evolution is the reason for the variety of species and humans evolved from a common ancestor to monkeys.  This is one of the most sound theories there are.  And this doesn't change that, just alters the dates and species tree slightly.  notice that they even say the the species tree is more like a bush now (in terms of its appearance).

Answer 10

This article conforms 100% to contemporary thoughts on evolution.  When species speciate into new species it usually occurs in isolated regions and there is nearly always a co-existence of this new species with the descendants of their founding species non-speciated cousins.  In other words, when speciation occurs all of the previous species does not suddenly die, but can even continue to thrive in environments that they are still successful or because of their own isolation from this "new" species that sprung from a common ancestor.  Evolution has always been known to be a tree with many branches and if what you are implying were a true description of the evolutionary process then we should not be co-habituating with any of the lineages that split off from the numerous common ancestors that humans share with the animal kingdom.  Fortunately Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans have all found their own niche in this world and continue to persevere despite our separation from a common ancestor.  Whenever we talk of "common ancestor", in fact, we are refering to a similar circumstance where the speciation of a new species left some of the pre-existing species to continue on it's own evolutionary path thus leaving similar occurrences in the fossil record as that that is being reported in this article.  Even since Homo habilis became Homo erectus, Homo erectus had an overlap with Homo heidelbergensis, Homo heidelbergensis with Archaic Homo sapiens and Archaics with modern Homo sapiens.  Also, speciation is not generally a "clean brake" from the founding species and the archaeological record is rife with specimens that don't clearly fit into any distinct hominid species due to the relatively rapid (in evolutionary terms)transition from hominid to hominid over the past 5 million years.  Homo erectus even separately evolved into Homo floriensis, and due to the isolation of this  erectus population they continued to co-exist through heidelbergensis, Archaic Homo sapiens and (depending on when they speciated into Homo floriensis) possibly even with modern Homo sapiens.  Does this somehow shudder the foundation that Homo sapiens at one time evolved from a common ancestor with floriensis, that being erectus?  Of course not!  As for close habitation, as the article seems to think is important, it is not.  Homo neanderthalensis (An archaic Homo sapiens which independently evolved from heidelbergensis) and Homo sapiens (evolved from heidelbergensis through the African Archaic Homo sapiens) co-habituated in the Middle East from 90,000 ya and in Europe up until about 35,000 ya.  So this geographic and dating proximity actually adds very little to the discussion of our archaeological history regarding Homo habilis and Homo erectus as this overlap was already known.  This is the problem with "popular" articles, like this one, vs. "peer reviewed" articles as is core to scientific journals.  The "popular" articles can write in very lose, and misleading language.  Anyways, our human evolutionary past has been known to have been a thorny bush for many decades, including all the severed branches of all our extinct hominid relatives who were not even a part of our human evolution.  This article only adds some very minor details and does not truly bring any incredibly significant empirical evidence into the spotlight concerning the subject of human evolution, and definitely does not weaken evolutionary theory at all.  In fact, if you were to find a scientific article based on the same empirical evidence you would find that in actuality this evidence, once again, strengthens evolutionary theory.

Answer 11

this article has nothing whatsoever to do with the correctness or lack thereof of evolutionary theory.

It is about details of the human "family tree". It's the equivalent of wondering if your great-great-grandmother Amelia was not your great-great-grandaunt Amelia instead. Doesn't really change much. You still will have had a great-great-grandmother, only her name was maybe Emma instead...

It nowhere says that Homo sapiens was around at that time.

If you actually would read it, you would discover that. You wouldn't even need to read the very last paragraph to figure that out. If you can't understand this, you should probably work on your education.