Notice how quickly some humans move in. And why, exactly?
Hey, this is on a level with New Scientist’s claim that Earth is not especially life friendly compared to planets about which various theorists claim there could somehow be life (if their theories happen to be correct).
From Ars Technica, ,
Recent discoveries point to shared traits and blurred borders with our closest relatives.
As one intriguing fossil discovery after another has made headlines over the past year, our understanding of our species’ history has started to shift, and a new story is emerging: one where our extinct relatives share many of the traits we had thought were uniquely human, and our own species is not that special after all. More.
Nope. They don’t.
Wait till we dig up something like a New Volkswagen among some chimp bones. Then let’s talk.
The critical question is, why is this obviously false cant such a big deal in pop science? Who or what really benefits?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
as to:
Reminds of the old farmer who said:
Of note, the authors themselves offered these disclaimers in their article:
Moreover, the word ‘fuzzy’ is used in their headline to claim that humans are no so special after all. I hold that the word ‘fuzzy’ is much more appropriately used to describe the state of evidence that they are relying on to try to make their grand (i.e. imaginary) claims of human evolution from.
This is especially true since there is no solid, real time, empirical evidence that neo-Darwinists can appeal to to support their grand claims that one kind of species can randomly morph into another kind of species.
Moreover, the overall fossil record pattern is one of sudden appearance and stasis and is not one of gradualism. i.e. It is a ‘top down’ pattern of disparity preceding diversity:
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Charles Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
This ‘top down’ pattern is even true for the human fossil record.
Moreover, differences between the present races of humans are found to wrought by the culling of genetic information, not by the generation of new genetic information as was, and is, falsely believed in Darwinian thought.
Thus, as is usual for anything a person looks at in Darwinian evolution, the closer one looks at the evidence the more the evidence falls apart for the Darwinian storyline.
Darwinists simply have no hard scientific evidence whatsoever to support their grand claims that humans, or anything else, evolved from simpler creatures.
“and a new story is emerging: one where our extinct relatives share many of the traits we had thought were uniquely human, and our own species is not that special after all.”
“Human” not special – but “Homo” special. Homo VERY special. Not Ape. Split not lump. This is a good trend.
Comparing us to our ancient ancestors instead of comparing us to chimps & bonobos. This is a good thing.
If you look at the graphic at http://arstechnica.com/science.....o-sapiens/, it looks like the boundaries are not “fuzzy”, but in the sense of evidence presented they are “non-existent.” At each supposed branch you see what … just w
Sorry about my truncated comment yesterday. Let me try to finish the thought today:
If you look at the graphic at http://arstechnica.com/science…..o-sapiens/, it looks like the boundaries are not “fuzzy”, but in the sense of evidence presented they are “non-existent.” At each supposed branch you see what … just wood. No cartoon faces – no apes, chimps, humans or neandros. Just that empty space at the branch where the common ancestors face presumably should sit. Why should I or anyone else consider this sort of contrived evidence to be some sort of proof of a troubled theory. And in reading through the article itself, I am once more astounded at the admitted paucity of solid evidence to support the conclusions of evolutionary thought and theory.
The deity of evolution is “DEEP TIME” — blessed be its name and its creative powers.
The complete link is at:
http://arstechnica.com/science.....o-sapiens/