[__ Science __ ] More Confusion in the Story of Human Evolution

[AIG.com]

The story of how humans evolved is continually changing. It seems every new find disrupts what evolutionists expected and the storytelling they add to it.

Continue reading...

 

[Milk-Drops]

Yeah, that's called science. New information changes what we know.

 

[Barbarian]

It probably seems like cheating to creationists. Every time we get new information, we update the theory to reflect the facts. But they are locked into the same doctrine they've been using since the Seventh-Day Adventists invented it early in the last century.

Seems unfair, but then we didn't make the rules.

Then there's this gem from the article:
And that means evolutionists now have to rethink human evolution because, in this new timeline, not only is Mrs. Ples now “old enough” to be a supposed human ancestor, but her species and that of Lucy (the famous Australopithecus afarensis specimen), in the evolutionary view, lived at the same time, and their species could have interbred with one another.

This is the famous creationist "if you are alive, you uncle has to be dead" doctrine. In their very limited understanding of evolution, if a new species comes into being, the old species is required to go extinct. Yeah, I don't know how anyone could actually believe that, but there it is, in red and white.