http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/australopithecus-sediba-bones_n_954212.html To me, this is more of the same "spin." It shows that the "theory" is really a "theory" and that those who cling to its being something akin to "fact" actually have FAITH as strong as theists who believe God is sovereign over all creation. This demonstrates that the "theory" is basically unfalsifiable.
How does changing our evolutionary history change the theory of evolution? The two aren't related. One is a process, the other is a history of the process and its relation to our species.
Read more about it. A. Sediba moves forward in evolutionary "history" in some regard, but BACKWARD in other areas. This shows that there is a flaw in THEORY.
"That may force a re-evaluation of the process of evolution because many researchers had previously associated development of a human-like pelvis with enlargement of the brain, but in A. sediba the brain was still small" This actually makes more sense to me than the assumptino that brain growth came first or simultaneously. The old theory seems to be that the big hips led to a higher survival rate for big-headed people. The new one, if I understand it right, is that big hips preceded bigger brains (and made it possible) and the bigger brains increased the chances of survival. It makes more sense that big hips would facilitate the advancement of big brains. On reflection it makes less sense that big hips increased survival for big brains, because then it would seem just as likely that the species would select for small brains (being that humans would lack the structure necessary for successful birth in most cases). At least that's if I'm understanding what's changed.
If they found rabbits in pre-Cambrian rocks, then the theory would be falsified. Evolution is falsifiable, and you do not have a more viable and testable candidate to take its place.
The problem with creationists is that since they have faith evolution is wrong and there isn't any evidence against it it must mean it isn't falsifiable instead of the more logical answer that they're wrong.
Bingo. The poremise of the OP is totally off, I mean seriously. "Game changer" does not discredit evolution to reduce it down to "just a theory". The remains found do not contradict anything, only serve to enhance it. This fact is clear as day. I have a hard time taking those who jump up and down claiming something is false, when they themselves haven't a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue. There is a reason why ID and creationism is barred from public schools, and it certainly is not because there is some vast conspiracy against the poor oppressed Christians.
If anything, this discovery lends support to the theory of evolution, at least in the area of human evolution. It certainly does not undermine it. BTW: a theory is a lot more "falsifiable" than a bible tale.
May I ask how pre-Antediluvian finds are important to you? Also, just to specify terminology, with time before the Biblical Antediluvian period, do you mean before Biblical creation?
What? How does a find showing more clearly the link between homo habilis and australopithecines reflect poorly on the theory of evolution?