Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor
NEW YORK – Last fall, a fossil skeleton named "Ardi" shook up the field of human evolution. Now, some scientists are raising doubts about what exactly the creature from Ethiopia was and what kind of landscape it inhabited.
New critiques question whether Ardi really belongs on the human branch of the evolutionary tree, and whether it really lived in woodlands. That second question has implications for theories about what kind of environment spurred early human evolution.
The new work is being published by the journal Science, which last year declared the original presentation of the 4.4 million-year-old fossil to be the magazine's breakthrough of the year.
Why is it, when some fossil is found, it is hailed as "THE BREAKTHROUGH WHICH PROVES ..." yet a short while later it fades off the palaeontologist's map and hardly a word is heard.
The result?
Another false impression for evolution is burned in the memory of (for the sake of argument) atheists.
This is later pounced on as truth and used to "prove evolution" to us poor misguided Christians.
My question is;
Is this scientifically unfair?
Scource;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100527/ap_on_sc/us_sci_human_ancestor
NEW YORK – Last fall, a fossil skeleton named "Ardi" shook up the field of human evolution. Now, some scientists are raising doubts about what exactly the creature from Ethiopia was and what kind of landscape it inhabited.
New critiques question whether Ardi really belongs on the human branch of the evolutionary tree, and whether it really lived in woodlands. That second question has implications for theories about what kind of environment spurred early human evolution.
The new work is being published by the journal Science, which last year declared the original presentation of the 4.4 million-year-old fossil to be the magazine's breakthrough of the year.
Why is it, when some fossil is found, it is hailed as "THE BREAKTHROUGH WHICH PROVES ..." yet a short while later it fades off the palaeontologist's map and hardly a word is heard.
The result?
Another false impression for evolution is burned in the memory of (for the sake of argument) atheists.
This is later pounced on as truth and used to "prove evolution" to us poor misguided Christians.
My question is;
Is this scientifically unfair?
Scource;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100527/ap_on_sc/us_sci_human_ancestor