Seven Million Years Ago, the Oldest Known Early Human Was Already Walking

On the other hand, if a scientist is ethical and the evidence after careful reconsiderations truly does stand up, then he/she has an obligation to publish it.

How likely would that be to pass peer review?

Sorry, but whoever tried to publish it would be kicked to the proverbial scientific curb, branded with the folks who made claims of skeletons of Giants, ancient astronauts, etc.

Wasn't there a dinosaur in recent years with amazingly preserved collagen, which had anti-evolutionists going berserk -- "see, see, see! No way can DNA survive millions of years, therefore must be Young Earth!!" Well... there was no dino-DNA, but there were bits of collagen which showed that dinosaurs taste like chicken. And I suppose that's good to know, right?

Dunno. most dinosaurs would be well past their 'use by' date. Even though I prefer beef, a newer chicken likely would more healthy.

Bottom line: no evidence falsifying basic evolution theory has ever been confirmed.

And none which proves the transitions critical to the theory has been presented either, namely from unicellular to multicellular organisms, from invertebrates to vertebrates, nor other critical junctures where the limbs attach to that family tree. In the end, it's all what you want to believe. Look at how long it took, despite evidence, to admit that pre-Clovis cultures were present in North America. My Archaeology Prof was a virtual heretic for even suggesting the Americas could have been populated as much as 32,000 years ago or more, yet, the data is finally coming out nearly 50 years later. Much of what didn't fit was either destroyed or lies buried in a dusty back room somewhere, because the people "qualified" to dig it out and report it were the ones with PhDs controlling what got published or living in terror of being discredited by demagogues standing on scientific orthodoxy.

Either way, it isn't just about science, it is about grant money, tenure, prestige, and preserving that prestige, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

We just saw a tremendous example of how that works with COVID.

Smokin' Joe: "How likely would that be to pass peer review?
Sorry, but whoever tried to publish it would be kicked to the proverbial scientific curb, branded with the folks who made claims of skeletons of Giants, ancient astronauts, etc."

You remember the rule, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
In our hypothetical example, we've posited finding human bones in a 40 million year old geological stratum, what do we do?

Well, first, there are at least three major issues:

Are we certain these fossils are really human, or pre-human and if so, what species are they?
This would be a separate investigation, turn the bones over to outside experts and let them analyse & report separately what they really are, irrespective of how old they may or may not be.
Are we certain the geographical stratum is 40 million years old?
Again, a separate investigation, bring in outside experts.
Use every method known to determine geological ages, publish those results separately.
Remember, one way to find human bones in 40 million year-old strata is if other humans buried bones there.
Another way is for more recent fossils to have washed down an embankment to a lower level, older stratum.
Experts must carefully analyze the stratum to be certain nothing like that happened.

So now we have three separate reports by three different groups of experts, none of which is in collusion with the others, or is publishing ANYTHING controversial.
In due time a fourth independent party, looking to make a name for him or herself, adds up the reports and reaches a logical conclusion.

That's one way to do it, and my guess is that at least one of the independent reports would not support the most radical interpretation -- that's how science is supposed to work.

Smokon' Joe: "And none which proves the transitions critical to the theory has been presented either, namely from unicellular to multicellular organisms, from invertebrates to vertebrates, nor other critical junctures where the limbs attach to that family tree.
In the end, it's all what you want to believe."

No, it's not, not if you accept the basic ideas of science itself.
Then you would quickly recognize thousands upon thousands of "transitional forms".
Indeed, if you think about it, every individual is "transitional" between its ancestors and it's descendants, if any.
Of course, without knowing an individual's specific genealogy, it's impossible to say if one individual is ancestor to another younger version of the same form.
However, virtually every fossil ever found can be placed in a sequence of transitional fossils over many millions of years.

So you claim that "proves" nothing, of course not, for one reason: in scientific terms theories are not "proved", they are confirmed or falsified by evidence.
Millions of transitional fossils help confirm evolution theory.

Smokin' Joe: "Either way, it isn't just about science, it is about grant money, tenure, prestige, and preserving that prestige, even in the face of evidence to the contrary."

And yet, even in your own example, the truth did eventually win out, or so it seems.
The rule that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," did eventually produce enough to satisfy most critics.
That's how science is supposed to work.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.