Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New York Times report on human evolution controversy vindicates book Science and Human Origins

arroba Email

Evolution News and Views

Science and Human Origins Commenting on Nicholas Wade’s New York Times article, “Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human Origins” (July 26, 2012), David Klinghoffer notes the effort to keep a lid on a growing controversy in human origins by insulting those who draw attention to it as “creationists” and “science deniers”:

How delicious, then, to find the New York Times reporting today on a juicy spat between paleontologists and geneticists. As we’ve pointed out many times before, when it comes to evolution, different lines of evidence have a troubling tendency to point in different directions. So it is here, where the point of contention is whether an archaic human species, something like Neanderthals, was still hanging out in Africa as recently as 25,000 years ago, living next to and interbreeding with modern humans.

Fossil evidence says no. Genetic evidence appears to say yes

“The Study of Human Origins Remains Unsettled”, Evolution News & Views, July 26, 2012

Science deniers? In this case, which side of the controversy are the deniers supposed to be denying? What their critics don’t like is the fact that they openly discuss and illustrate reasons for the controversy while the establishment hacks were trying to keep a lid on. See, for example, Science and Human Origins.

This is somewhat like watching an earsplitting row at the next table and being told, there is no disagreement and nothing is at issue. Well, we are witnesses anyway.

See also: Science journalist: Don’t let the rubes know about human evolution controversies

Who cares what they don't doubt? People care what tey can support and they cannot support universal common descent. Heck they don't even know if the transformations required are even possible. Joe
I doubt that neither the geneticists, nor the paleontologists doubt common descent. This what the gist of the book was denying. smiddyone

Leave a Reply