Once again, back to the drawing board for evolution

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Another discovery raises more questions about the veracity of Darwinian evolutionary theory (except in the minds of Darwin's disciples).

A recent article on FoxNews.com reports some recent findings that put a large kink in evolutionary theory.

Now, there may be some readers that think my statement of going back go the drawing board is too harsh. However, I’m not the only one who states this. Meave Leakey’s team who made this discovery made this statement. I quote:

Leakey’s team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus.

Now, why is it necessary for evolutionary theory to go back to the drawing board? Allow me summarize the article and mention some highlights. Also, I encourage you to read the article yourself.

To summarize, two human skulls were found in Africa that scientists conclude lived at the same time. The problem: one is supposed to be the ancestor of the other. The conclusion: evolution was not as linear, clean, and clear as once thought.

The article states (emphasis added):

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.

But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s journal Nature.

Researches conclude that this discovery “makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis.”

As a result, the famous picture of evolution showing humans going in a straight line from monkey to man is not valid.

Of course, this is not the first time evolutionary theory was forced to return to the drawing board. Evolutionary researcher Bill Kimbel, science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, said “that old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple” (emphasis added). He continued by saying that “the more we know, the more complex the story gets.”

Kimbel didn’t stop there, either. The story reports this:

Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Despite the constant need to rethink evolution, reshape it, reanalyze it, redraw it, evolutionary scientists continue to hold fast to something that seems to find new ways to fail. And it is not just me who says it has failed. Even evolutionary scientists, as I’ve noted, have claimed the need to change everything.

Why must things change so often? Because after claiming to discover the truth, new discoveries force science to change. The problem is not with the discoveries, however. The problem is with the interpretation of the discoveries. Nevertheless, scientists remain adamant that evolution is true, despite its constant revisions since Darwin first published his “what if” book. According to the article, because scientists believe evolution is true, Fred Spoor, professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London, said that “they [H. erectus and H. habilis] have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record” (emphasis added).

Now, allow me to provide a simple lesson on the scientific method. According to Wikipedia, it is a process of “gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” Put simply, people gather measurable, observable, empirical evidence and test it to see if a hypothesis is true. If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be considered proven true. If it is not measurable, observable, and empirical, then the hypothesis cannot be considered proven true.

Now, apply this to evolution’s idea of man’s history.

Spoor says that evolution is true, but that there is some missing, undiscovered evidence that exists. In other words, we know it’s true, but we don’t have all the evidence. Now, is an unknown, undiscovered skeleton or skeleton part testable? Is it measurable? Is it observable? So far, the answer is no. We cannot test the unknown. Therefore, because the history of man according to evolution depends, in part, on unknown evidence that does not meet the scientific method, one must say evolution’s theory of man’s origins is not proven true. It is only a hypothesis.

Many scientists reject the existence of God. Why? Because God cannot be observed, tested, measured, etc. Yet, many of these same scientists hold that man came from monkeys, despite the fact that they admit to a missing piece of evidence. They place their theory, in part, on evidence that cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be observed. If God does not exists because he cannot be observed and tested, then man did not come from apes because that missing link cannot be tested and observed. Without that link being tested and observed, evolution remains a hypothesis and, at most, a theory. Not a law.

Now, I’m sure there are some who are saying that I’m holding to a double standard because I accept a God that cannot be observed and tested. However, I never claimed that God falls under the realm of science. I accept God’s real existence out of faith. I do not claim he is scientifically proven. I believe there is some evidence in nature that points to him. Just like evolutionists hold to some evidence that points to their idea. However, I’m willing to say I walk in faith… will scientists make the same claim?

In conclusion, this discovery does not completely disprove evolution. It does, however, force it to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate its ideas and theories. While science keeps trying to determine where we came from, I’m interested in where I’m going. Will I go to heaven or hell? I firmly believe I’ll go to heaven, not because of what I’ve done, but because of what God has done.

Some say heaven and hell are not real, but that when we die, we just cease to exists. If you are one who holds this belief, let me ask you a simple question. What if you’re wrong? If I’m wrong and you are right, then I have lost nothing. If you are wrong and I am right, then I gain everything and you face judgment.

God loves you and wants you to be in heaven with him. However, because we all have sinned, we are guilty before God. However, because of his love, God sent his own son to take your punishment for you. By placing your faith in Jesus alone for salvation, you can be saved. God loves you… will you accept his love?

About John L. Rothra
Stay Updated
More Articles You May Like

This Post Has One Comment

  1. James Cook

    John, science reacts to new evidence and modifies its theories. Newton’s theories have been revised but no one questions the fact that gravity exists. Religious dogma on the other hand never changes so evidence doesn’t even enter into the equation. These findings neither disprove evolution nor prove the existence of a creator. In fact, it’s very hard to look at this evidence and see how it can be reconciled with the Biblical creation story.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

I’m Here to Help You

I want to help you and your church know, show, and share the gospel of Jesus!

Having been involved with churches of various sizes—from small rural churches to urban megachurches—I offer my experience and education to you.

Schedule me to speak or to be a guest on your podcast or YouTube channel.