It was 50 years ago, when a Professor from the University of California, Berkeley, named Thomas Kuhn released a challenge to the scientific community that argued against the traditional view of science which was collecting facts that would lead to a greater understanding of nature. Rather, Kuhn believed scientific discovery relied on what questions scientists would ask, their philosophical commitments, and so on.
Kuhn also wrote about how a theory breaks down which involves many unsolved mysteries, or in other words...“anomalies,” where the accuracy of the theory comes into question thus prompting scientists to look for new ways at interpreting the data. But in evolutionary research, it’s not a new way of interpreting the data, once a theory has been falsified many times over with new discoveries, it’s finding ways to rescue the theory to keep it intact!
Another from the University of California, Berkeley exposes fraud that goes on in Paleoanthropology! He’s not a creationist nor an intelligent design proponent, but the things that go on in his field of work that consists of human evolution, have bothered him so much, he writes about it in current biology and it is jaw dropping…
“The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.”
“The authors take an unusual approach to constructing, in 3-D digital space, what they think the dental arcade of the new fossil maxilla should have looked like. They accomplish this feat by filling the fossil’s empty and broken tooth sockets with digital models of modern human teeth. Why modern human teeth were better suited than available contemporary fossil teeth is left unexplained.”
“Paleoanthropology’s ecosystem of publishing, access, fundraising, career advancement, media promotion and celebrity seems squarely aligned against the field’s ability to self regulate, a condition exacerbated by the limited fossil resources available.”
“There is ample and obvious motivation for authors to generate ‘new’ species names in this environment. Readers should, therefore, beware of attendant species diversity claims. Illegitimate names have become part and parcel of the symbiosis itself. Furthermore, ‘chronospecies’ are merely artificial segments of evolving species lineages, rather than truly separate species.”
“Such assertions of biological species diversity via taxonomic hyperbole are questionable representations of the real paleobiology of our ancestors and their few close, now extinct biological relatives. Despite the branch waving, our family tree still resembles a saguaro cactus more than a creosote bush.”
This is something one doesn’t read every day in published science articles! Tim White gives the public an honest view of what been going on in the work of trying to create a story about human evolution from fossils. He accuses his colleagues of being greedy, not caring for the research itself, but are in it for just to self-promotion, to make as much money as they can! White is also frustrated that his field of work cannot self-regulate which in turn would reduce the problems that exist.
Trusting proclamations about human evolution is getting harder even for some evolutionists themselves!