Human Evolution Revision, Part 2
A few more tidbits from the recent discoveries discussed in a previous post, and how this changes the theories (or speculations) about human evolution:
Dr. Spoor, speaking by satellite phone from a field site near Lake Turkana, said the evidence clearly contradicted previous ideas of human evolution “as one strong, single line from early to us.” The new findings, he added, support the revised interpretations of “a lot of bushiness and experimentation in the fossil record,” rather than a more linear succession of species.
Of course, a linear progression from species to species is what would support Darwin's theory. This is what has been sold to the general public and has led to one of the most enduring false icons of evolution in the popular mind: an ape becoming an ape-man becoming a man. "A lot of bushiness" in the fossil record tells us very little.
This revision of human evolution thinking/speculating is very similar to the revision of horse evolution, and the conflicting ways horse evolution has been presented at the American Museum of Natural History.
This discovery was actually made in 2000, but is only now being reported:
In recent years, scientists not involved in the project said, discoveries were hinting at possible overlap between the habilis and erectus species. But the implications were considered so profound that little was said about these dates, pending more conclusive evidence.
So profound, indeed. If the discoveries had been of new fossils supporting a clear linear progression from ape to man, do you think that we would have waited seven years to hear about them? You see, in this field, all evidence is not created equal. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised to see the NY Times reporting on this at all. The Lucy revision story was not reported, for example.
What do we really know about human evolution? Even before this discovery, there was no clear evidence that any fossil was anything other than fully ape or fully human. Homo habilis was the closest thing to something that was in between, and that was because tools were found nearby and it was presumed that Homo habilis used them.
What we are left with is more evidence of a fossil record reflecting sudden appearance and stasis, which does not support Darwinian theory, and arguably falsifies it.