The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

60° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


Mailbag: March 31

Letters to the editor

You need to take a deep breath … or do you?

Today I went past a pile of Daily Wildcat papers and was shocked by a headline on the first page: “”Footprints challenge theory of evolution.”” I already knew something was wrong with the article, considering that there is no such thing as the “”Theory of Evolution,”” rather, there is a theory for the mechanism that drives evolution, called the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

As I read the article, I was shocked to learn that there was new research suggesting that hominids walked upright 3.6 billion years ago. This implied that, not only were humans’ ancestors upright earlier than previously thought, but that they were upright at the same time that unicellular, anaerobic life was first appearing on this planet, before there was atmospheric oxygen! That would force us not only to rethink the facts on evolution, but also such biological concepts as “”Humans need oxygen to live”” and “”Humans can’t breathe methane,”” as well as geologic theories that are accepted worldwide by all but young-Earthers and flat-Earthers. I had to find out who had done this research that so totally overthrew the life sciences as we know them.

When I found the research paper that this article was about, I discovered that, for one, it was not a challenge to the “”Theory of Evolution,”” rather, it was an attempt to discover more precisely the phylogeny of humanity. Further, the researchers were looking at footprints that were 3.6 million, not billion, years old. That makes these footprints the earliest evidence for human bipedalism, but does nothing to challenge the “”Theory of Evolution.”” Instead, the research adds a new and interesting chapter to the story of human evolution, and gives us insight to the behavior of our ancestors.

— Geoffrey Richard Moyer

Biology freshman

Student body elections

I send my congratulations to the newly elected student government, and I hope that they make true to their campaign promises to make our university a cleaner and better place to study.

As a first move, perhaps the newly elected candidates, as well as those who did not earn office, could please clean up their campaign propaganda. If they made a strong effort to place their materials on all university announcement boards, clearly they could put forth the same effort to take down those materials.

— Kevin Keys

Senior, mathematics and liguistics

Comments from

On ‘Opting for a male studies major,’ March 31

Lol will Ricky Martin be a professor in this field?

— Anonymous

So many oppose even studying these issues. . . issues that NO ONE has solid information on, and in many cases no study has been done.

But these people are utterly convinced even studying these issues is offensive. Nevermind not knowing the extent of these problems…their bigotry tells them this endeavour is a waste of time.

In my mind, opposition of this type of discipline equates directly with a desire to see “”women on top”” in every measure…and that’s hate in my book.

— Anonymous

On ‘Footprints challenge theory of evolution,’ March 30

“”Exiting”” research? or exciting research? Foster agrees: “”Students can now see that there is exiting research being done here at the UA…..””

— Anonymous

3.5 million old human foot prints are the least of evloutions trouble, as there are thousands of out of time articacts that need to be explained if science is to remain credible.

— Mutant buzzard

The title and the article are two independent things. The title suggests that the article will discuss how these footprints will challenge the theory of evolution; however, the main point of this article is what it means for the U of A.

And yes, as mentioned before, “”billion”” suggests that humans are as old as the Earth itself…

— Anonymous

There are no problems with the “”theory of evolution”” in general; of course, new discoveries may undermine it, but that hasn’t happened yet and the one in question at best changes the details of one specific scenario only. LOLling at ignorance masquerading as factual claims, as usual.



More to Discover
Activate Search