August 9, 2007

Tweaking Evolution Theory

Filed under: Interesting News,Politics,Religion — acepundit @ 10:46 am

It’s a significant discovery, especially since the so-called people of science who look down on the religious as retarded flat-earthers are so damn sure about the origins of life:

WASHINGTON – 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.

It was once believed for the longest time that Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. Now it’s apparently the case that we’re completely unrelated. Some scientists and researchers are downplaying this minor revision:

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.

“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continous (sic) self-testing process.”

So the defense here is that it’s okay for science to keep disproving itself because whenever one theory is discredited a new one takes its place! If finding out that we in fact don’t come from Neanderthals isn’t a “flaw in evolution theory” then neither was discovering the link between cigarettes and cancer a flaw in the earliest research of tobacco that saw so no health risks.

And of course Susan Anton had to exploit religion in her defense of this “new evolution” despite the fact that religion has nothing to do with this debate. Even if it’s absolutely the case that man evolved from an earlier species you can’t rule out the possibility that it was started by a higher being. But don’t tell Susan Anton. She’s too busy being smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us.



  1. Ummmm, Scott…all theories are made to be proven or altered with new observations. It’s only when you think you know everything, that you are unteachable.

    Comment by Nancy — August 17, 2007 @ 4:00 am | Reply

  2. Scott, I like your site and the way you write. Thank you! Unlike most bloggers, you have a firm grip on spelling and grammar, and, even, to some degree, on logic – which is heartening. (And no; I don’t mean to patronise.) It *does* strike me, however, that you are far too bright to be a theist. You can’t say that a god exists because he hasn’t been disproved. That just isn’t good enough, I’m afraid.

    Why don’t I make up some bizarre, three-headed god of my own, then? You couldn’t disprove *him*, either… If this god was as obvious, omnipotent and real as we’re told he is, why are there scores of religions around the world which can’t agree upon a basic description? Is he one unit? Is he part of a trinity? Does he take animal form? Does he take pleasure in killing people? Is he peace-loving?

    Why is it that, when he “cures” someone of cancer, he is “merciful”, yet, when another person, who might be equally – or even more – deserving of life, dies of cancer, it’s “part of god’s plan”? Talk about covering your bases!

    If we have no idea of what form this god takes, or what his modus operandi is (i.e. does he operate alone or through agents such as a messiah), how are we to have the foggiest idea of what his demands are? Of course, we have man-made texts that constantly contradict themselves… And then there’s “faith”, the useful device which preachers of all religious hues use to stop their followers from asking too many leading questions! It’s perhaps no wonder that the “faithful” are biblically referred to as a “flock”, as they follow blindly and unthinkingly…

    Comment by Matthew — January 8, 2009 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: