Printed with permission from © Christopher M. Smith
Well, that’s what some researchers are saying:
“When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess–there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. “People are working under completely different paradigms, and that’s something that I don’t see happening in other fields of science.” …
“In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time,” Almécija said. “One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins–approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence–have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes.”
Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.
American Museum of Natural History, “Review: Most human origins stories are not compatible with known fossils” at Eurekalert (May 6, 2021)
Of course, human origins stories don’t need to be compatible with the fossils; they only need to be compatible with the theory.
Philip Cunningham draws our attention to a 2013 item as well:
The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
Indiana University, “No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests” at ScienceDaily (October 21, 2013)
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Seversky, aren’t you going to step in, as you usually do, and reassure us that this abject failure to find a coherent and unifying ‘story’ for human evolution is no problem whatsoever for Darwin’s theory?
I mean really, if you guys leave this devastating observation from the fossil record unchallenged, (from no less than the American Museum of Natural History), people may start to get the wrong idea and question whether the entire ‘narrative gloss’ of human evolution is even true in the first place.
Now, you wouldn’t want people to question Darwin would you Seversky?
Paleontologist Günter Bechly weighs in here:
Are ANY evolutionary human origin stories compatible with the evidence?
Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review (a Darwinist):
“People are working under completely different paradigms, and that’s something that I don’t see happening in other fields of science.”
In other words, Darwinism is pseudoscience…
Seversky, JVL and Co. any comments?
it is not only about human origin, after 150 years of Darwinism it is clear that the whole theory failed … there are no small gradual steps, nothing confirms this claim … also, the existence of viruses (most abundant biological entity on Earth) confirms that there is no universal common ancestor … the whole theory is a big mess …
I’m surprised that our resident Darwinists are strangely silent on this topic.
You would think they would try to defend human evolution in particular tooth and nail?
Bornagain77/1
What failure? The problem is still being studied. Like so much in science, it’s a work-in-progress.
Of course they should question Darwin, just like they are questioning relativity and quantum theories. That’s how we learn. Would that believers were as willing to challenge the tenets of their faith as much.
Seversky claims, “Of course they should question Darwin,”
Ha Ha Ha, LOL 🙂
Yeah right Seversky! When a severe problem with the scientific evidence turns up for Darwin’s theory, the theory is NEVER questioned, in the eyes of Darwinists it is, (among other excuses they offer for why Darwin’s theory is contradicted by the evidence), just a chance for them to learn more about Darwin’s theory.
As you yourself put the situation for Darwinists and how they treat Darwin’s theory, “The problem is still being studied. Like so much in science, it’s a work-in-progress.”
In other words, although the science contradicts Darwin’s theory at practically every turn, Darwinists simply never question Darwin’s theory, i.e. they never question their belief that all life on earth arose via unguided material processes.
Here are a few falsification of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory,
Verse:
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science.
Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Moreover, since science itself is ultimately suppose to be about a search for ‘the truth’, and yet since ‘truth’ itself turns out to be a abstract property of the immaterial mind, then assuming methodological naturalism as the supposed ground rule for science, (a worldview in which immaterial minds simply don’t exist), then assuming methodological naturalism actually precludes the abstract and immaterial property of ‘truth’ from ever being reached by science, since truth itself simply can never be based within naturalism.
Moreover, If science is artificially forced into this materialistic straightjacket of methodological naturalism, (where, prior to investigation, all answers must ultimately reduce to some sort of materialistic, natural, and/or physical explanation), then this artificial assumption that is forced onto science prior to investigation drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.