It wouldn't necessarily bother the "Darwinists", theoretically, if the whole evolutionary sequence were turned upside down: for the "theory" doesn't predict anything. It only explains things after the fact.
Comforting thought for Warren, I suppose, but incorrect. Every version of evolution of which I'm aware predicts that no fossil bones of a modern human will ever be discovered by digging into rock or sediment layers that are previously untouched by human activity and are older than, say, 50 million years. Should such a thing happen (and should it be shown that no hoax was involved), all current versions of evolution would immediately be falsified. And that's just one of many reasons why evolution (in any of its flavors) is a scientific theory and not an ideological (i.e., refutation-proof) belief system.
I disagree, we would find a way to explain how the fossils got there or accept that we can't explain everything, but we wouldn't junk the whole theory so quickly.
Strong word that - predicts. As someone who might even take slight credit for the recent retreat of evolutionists from one, THE Theory, to a plenitude of 'every versions', perhaps you might explain to me some of these competing versions of a theory of evolution? Do you consider them to be science? Can they be falsified? Does any one person confess the same sense of any one of these 'every versions' as anyone else, or do all just talk past each other under a vague, undisciplined, a-scientific or anti-scientific generalized religious conviction of an evolutionism?
Your "principle" here
is dangerous. After all,
you might just as well
say theories "predict"
you won't find dinosaurs in
a mammal's stomach.
Now they've found a case.
Oops. But no one's gonna junk
evolution. Now
they'll just tweak some dates.
An exactly similar
thing would occur if
somebody found bones
that were human-like in old
strata -- experts would
tweak some theory of
proto-human ape-like beings
older than we thought.
Evolution is
an outlook, not a theory --
its holders won't quit.
Don't be ridiculous. Evolution cannot be falsified. We thought it was falsified when no transitional creatures could be found. Nope. We thought it was falsified when the fossil record repudiated it. Nope. Instead, we got ridiculous "modifications" to the theory such as "punctuated equilibrium." Darwinism simply cannot be falsified, thereby proving it to be philosophy, not science.
And spare me your comebacks. If you say the fossil record supports evolution, you are either a fool or a liar. I've debated both and it is a waste of time.