Human Evolution Revision
I have wanted to comment on the new developments in the fossils related to the speculations about human evolution:
Two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possibly rearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral line to Homo sapiens.
Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44 million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55 million-year-old Homo erectus — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a
I hope to comment further later, but for now, some quick observations. Think about the logic of the third paragraph in the Times article:
If this interpretation is correct, the early evolution of the genus Homo is left even more shrouded in mystery than before. It means that both habilis and erectus must have originated from a common ancestor between two million and three million years ago, a time when fossil hunters had drawn a virtual blank.
Note the acknowledgment of mystery in the first sentence, followed by a statement about what "must" have happened in the second. Note the evidence supporting this statement of certainty. (There is none.) Is this science or philosophy? Feel the irony: in an article primarily about revising what scientists thought they knew, the reported tells us what must have happened despite the lack of evidence for it.
Honey, your presuppositions are showing.
Scrappleface has picked up on this story. But this post is not as funny as the Scrappleface post quoted here on a related topic.