Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.
Sorry, but evolutionary theory is not in doubt in the scientific community. The objections come from religious sources that have a miserable track record. Just look at the intelligent design movement. Is anybody even trying to debunk any more of their specific claims of irreducible complexity?
Furthermore, the article you linked to doesn't support that claim or make that suggestion.
What you need to understand is that Darwin's theory doesn't specify any pathways or timelines in human evolution. The theory is about the mechanism that drives biological evolution, which is not challenged by any changes in the proposed pathways and dates that new findings suggest.
Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution
There is no scientific theory of human evolution. The theory is about the evolution of all present and past life forms from a single common ancestor. Focusing on a particular transition such as from the last common ancestor of man and chimp to modern man (or chimp) does not give you a theory in the scientific sense.
We have hypotheses about that transition in man that are flexible, conforming to the existing data at the time, which is always changing with new discoveries like this one. If the out of Africa hypothesis can be falsified, then it goes, but not the theory of evolution, nor the idea that man descended from earlier, now extinct primates. These findings challenge neither of those.
science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man.
Science hypothesizes and then attempts to confirm or disconfirm its hypotheses using evidence.
Creationists and Bible literalists fantasize, as with the claim of a global flood submerging all dry land using nothing but faith in a book full of errors.
Whether man had ancestral forms from which he evolved is not disputed in the scientific community except, once again, by those whose allegiance to religion exceeds their commitment to evaluating evidence critically. The scientific community cannot use ideas dependent on the truth of faith based beliefs.
Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.
We already know that the present understanding of how and when man arose is incomplete. If the existing data suggests an out of Africa scenario, then that is a viable hypothesis until new data suggests a different pathway and timeline. That's healthy science.
