Human evolution Intelligent Design

Smithsonian Magazine on the biggest human fossil discoveries of the past decade; ENST replies

Spread the love

The Denisovans lead:

When the decade first started, scientists recovered ancient genetic material from a fossilized finger bone found in the Denisova Cave in Siberia. They tested that material and discovered that the DNA didn’t match that of modern humans or Neanderthals. Instead, it belonged to a previously undiscovered species of early humans now called Denisovans. It was the first time a new species has been identified using ancient DNA.

What does this tell us? The human genome is a wondrous archive of our relationships with ancient species no longer around. riana Pobiner & Rick Potts, “These are the Decade’s Biggest Discoveries in Human Evolution” at Smithsonian Magazine

But some think it all doesn’t amount to much:

The 2010s was a bad decade for the study of human evolution. Smithsonian Magazine recently published an article titled “These are the Decade’s Biggest Discoveries in Human Evolution.” It opens by saying:

“Human evolution is one of the most vibrant areas of scientific investigation. In the past decade we’ve seen many discoveries that add to our understanding of our origins. To mark the 10th anniversary of the Smithsonian’s “David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins,” here are some of the biggest discoveries in human evolution from the last 10 years.”

What are the big discoveries of the decade? Did they reveal new and compelling evidence that humans evolved from lower primates? Some of these big discoveries actually turn out to be instances where the evidence for human evolution weakened, and the rest amount to slight revisions of previously held theories that don’t say much about the core tenets of paleoanthropology.

Evolution News, “A Disappointing Decade for the Study of Human Evolution” at Evolution News and Science Today

One reason it’s not been an especially “vibrant” decade is that the subhumans all turned into relatives, and reasonably smart ones at that. Paleontologists are still looking for the subhuman that would validate Darwinism.

6 Replies to “Smithsonian Magazine on the biggest human fossil discoveries of the past decade; ENST replies

  1. 1
    jawa says:

    That’s a very interesting article indeed.

    BTW, this text copied from the article:

    “The SCO [Single-Origin Couple] model “

    Shouldn’t it be SOC instead?

    Just curious. Thanks.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Seems like an honest evolutionist would be “vibrantized” by the finding that these human groups existed at the same time and competed, cooperated and intermarried. It’s a “vibrant” chance to examine the roles of competition vs cooperation in natural selection.

  3. 3
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    Please describe all the characteristics of a subhuman that you think would “validate Darwinism”.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    It is impossible to validate Darwinism because Darwinism is nothing but lies and bluffs.

  5. 5
    jawa says:

    “Perhaps in ten years we’ll be having this conversation again — and perhaps at that time the Smithsonian Institution will give us all a more objective analysis of the evidence. Who knows what the next decade will bring?“

    Hopefully we’ll have a CoViD-19 vaccine and the lockdown will be history?

  6. 6
    goodusername says:

    I would say the biggest news of the decade was the new published results from studies of the Dmanisi Skulls, although the skulls were discovered in the previous decade so I guess they don’t qualify.

    One reason it’s not been an especially “vibrant” decade is that the subhumans all turned into relatives, and reasonably smart ones at that.

    Well, any such groups would be relatives, wouldn’t they? If you mean “relative” as opposed to “ancestor” then I’m guessing you’re referring to the Neanderthals, but that’s how they’ve always been viewed.

    Paleontologists are still looking for the subhuman that would validate Darwinism.

    Is there a gap somewhere that you think needs to be filled? What would such a fossil look like that’s different from ones already discovered?

Leave a Reply