Darwin was undoubtedly wrong, small changes over long periods of time can't get the job done. Doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, just means that Darwins view of the mechanism was wrong.
A paleontologist friend made the same observation to me.
It seems to me a little humility is due from both sides. We've only just mapped the human genome and only have the foggiest idea how the thing might work. It seems clear many species have ancestors, but do we have enough evidence to say with certainty all life descended from one common ancestor? Or were there many? The Cambrian explosion creates a lot of questions we don't seem to know the answers to today. We have a very sketchy family tree for the primates, based on inferences drawn from a very small quantity of specimens. It seems to me we're still in an era where we don't know more than we do. I'm even open to a metaphysical role in the origin of species. Some of the ID folks have some interesting ideas, but even less evidence for them than the Darwinians.
On the other hand, some humility is due from the crevos. As Narby observed, IMHO the Genesis story of creation is compatible with evolution. I've never understood the atheists or the Christians who insist the two are incompatible. The Bible teaches us to be humble, to submit to God's will and do His will rather than our own. We learn from dust we came to dust we will return. If it turns out there is an ape way back in the human family tree, are we so proud that we can't accept that? God works in mysterious ways and may have chosen that path to create Man. That doesn't diminish the accomplishment.
Well, I'm rambling, so I'll just post this.
Fascinating -- please present your evidence for this amazing assertion, and you're a shoe-in for the next Nobel Prize. Or... maybe you're just stating your prejudices as if they were facts.
Doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, just means that Darwins view of the mechanism was wrong.
In what way, exactly? It has been tested thousands of different ways, in hundreds of thousands of experiments and observations over the past several hundred years, and oddly enough the results of the experiments certainlys eem to back Darwin, and fail to match your conclusion. Please explain.