Darwinists Topple Darwin’s Tree of Life (it's about time!)

CEH ^

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwinists Topple Darwin’s Tree of Life

Darwin’s “Tree of Life” is a myth. It’s based on circular reasoning. It is a pattern imposed on the data, not a fact emerging from the evidence. We should give up the search for a single tree of life (TOL) as a record of the history of life on earth, because it is a “quixotic pursuit” unlikely to succeed – and the evidence is against it. Who said this? Not creationists, but a new member of the National Academy of Sciences in his inaugural paper for the academy’s Proceedings.1

W. Ford Doolittle and Eric Bapteste decided to celebrate this inauguration with fireworks. What they wrote is less a scientific paper than a reprimand. They let Darwin-lovers have it between the eyes:

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Not another one of these goofy threads...

[Constitution Day]

Agreed!

[svcw]

I was wondering. Since you don’t like these threads, it would seem that you might want to evolve past looking at them.

[swain_forkbeard]

Why is it goofy? Newton didn’t understand relativity so calculus is wrong and a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is proven. What’s so hard about that?

[null and void]

People who have a fundamental, unrecognized insecurity about their core values will grasp at any thread that can keep their mental house of cards from crashing about their head.

[woollyone]

It is simply too humorously fitting that the theory of evolution must continually evolve.

A progressive world view, no doubt.
...but, I thought FR was a conservative site.

hrmph

[saganite]

These threads are the daily spam mail here on FR. GG&G (sounds like a company!) is the purveyor. They’re actually pretty good for comic relief if you don’t take them seriously.

[GL of Sector 2814]

It is simply too humorously fitting that the theory of evolution must continually evolve.

A progressive world view, no doubt.

No, a scientific world view. Being willing to reevaluate theories in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness.

[Dutchboy88]

Are you willing to reevaluate the theory that reevaluating theories is a strength? Didn’t you say that was “strength”?

[varmintman]

The other versions of evoloserism, particularly “punk-eek”, have just as many problems as Darwinian gradualism if not more. Walter Remine notes that no one version of the business is logically consistent or coherent and so what we actually get from evolosers at this juncture is what he calls a “smorgasbord”, i.e. a plate filled with various bits and pieces from each of the several versions.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Being willing to reevaluate theories in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness.

True enough. But let’s not forget that creation scientists have been predicting the demise of Darwin’s tree of life ever since he published his first (unscientific) book on origins. As such, creation science is strengthened, and neo-Darwinian evolution is severely diminished.

[bert]

Your intellectual problem is the desperate need for absolute certainty.

It is not necessary to be absolutely certain. It is ok to probe to better understand

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

I read most of Remine’s book a while back. Excellent read, but a tad difficult to get through in places. I think it’s time I picked it back up and finished it. Thanks for the reminder!

All the best—GGG

[Buck W.]

“I read most of Remine’s book a while back.”

The message theory book? The self-published one?

[cripplecreek]

Let him pretend.

[Buck W.]

“Newton didn’t understand relativity so calculus is wrong and a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is proven. “

Ha! Thankfully, then, we have Leibniz!

[woollyone]

Like I said...

An evloving progressive evolutionary theory.

[GL of Sector 2814]

Are you willing to reevaluate the theory that reevaluating theories is a strength? Didn’t you say that was “strength”?

Actually, I said that reevaluating theories in the face of new evidence is a strength. Do you disagree?

[Cedric]

Have you made a similar complaint to the nitwit who posts 43 anti-McCain articles per day?

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, it’s excellent. Have you read it?

[Dutchboy88]

Perhaps. If a scientist comes up with “evidence” that you do not exist, are you willing to consider that you do not exist?

[Buck W.]

No. I’m waiting for a publisher who is willing to stake its reputation on the content to print the next edition.

[yankeedame]

Being willing to reevaluate theories in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness.

Hear! Hear!

[Buck W.]

“If a scientist comes up with “evidence” that you do not exist, are you willing to consider that you do not exist?”

How would one measure such evidence?

[yankeedame]

If a scientist comes up with “evidence” that you do not exist, are you willing to consider that you do not exist?

Illogical. The fact that the scientist comes up with “evidence” that I do not exist means I do exist, else how could he know I'm here?

[wow]

This thread reminds me of the dyslexic agnostic insomniac that would stay awake all night wondering if there really was a dog!

[Dutchboy88]

Read the New Scientist magazine. They claim evidence is emerging that you are simply a hologram.

If you reject this, your rejection is exercised using some of the same reasoning that other folks look at “common descent” (the true hallmark of evolution, incedentaly, not natural selection) and reject its illogic.

[count-your-change]

Evolution is perfectly compatible with environmentalism.

[whattajoke]

Newton didn’t understand relativity so calculus is wrong and a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is proven. What’s so hard about that?

LOL, excellent. It's all so clear now.

[whattajoke]

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this article in any way, shape or form diminishes evolutionary theory.

Creationists are weird.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

No I have not. So sue me.

[Ken H]

Have you made a similar complaint to the nitwit who posts 43 anti-McCain articles per day?

I HATE that guy!

[Cedric]

He does serve as a good argument against evolution.

[Cedric]

So do you.

[GodGunsGuts]

Nothing can diminish the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism because it is a fanatical religion masquerading as science.

[count-your-change]

But the tree of life was such a handy tool. Way out on a limb was an animal and close to the trunk was another with nothing in between, giving the idea that one led to the other.
Nice, neat and visual but wrong.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Grumpy today aren’t we?

[Cedric]

Ya, I just found out I’m on a list!

[tpanther]

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this article in any way, shape or form diminishes evolutionary theory.

Creationists are weird.

More proof, as if we needed more, that there's simply no such thing as peer review of evolution.

[tpanther]

Nothing can diminish the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism because it is a fanatical religion masquerading as science.

Cultists are unable to tolerate peer review, which is why it doesn't really exist. These efforts are always dismissed as religion or anti-science. These fellas will probably be investigated and branded as right wing bible-thumpers.

When your weakness you call a theory ultimately requires enforcement via lawsuits and not science you don't have a leg to stand on.

[rabscuttle385]

Have you made a similar complaint to the nitwit who posts 43 anti-McCain articles per day?

Didn't I ask you to ping me if you were gonna badmouth me?

Sigh.

Anyways, here's a present for you.

Next time you want to talk trash about me...or any other Freeper, for that matter...please do me a favor and just down all twenty-four caplets at the same time. Not only will it help ease the pain of seeing your beloved RINO McCain go down in flames over and over again, it might even cure your rather nasty case of Conservative Derangement Syndrome.

[rabscuttle385]

I HATE that guy!

Me? or McCain?

He does serve as a good argument against evolution.

No comment.

[rabscuttle385]

/mark

[DirtyHarryY2K]

LMAO!

[cookcounty]

"I cannot for the life of me figure out how this article in any way, shape or form diminishes evolutionary theory."

Well, when I went to school (back in the ancient 60's), Darwin's Tree of Life was prominently featured in textbooks as a sort of visual thumbnail definition of what evolution was all about. To my knowledge, there were no evolutionists lodging complaints at the time.

The problem with "evolution" is that the term is so elastic that it can mean almost anything.......and therefore it means almost nothing. I can't name an evolutionary

[MaggieCarta]

Cedric, old chap, it’s really bad form to carry silly grudges over to unrelated threads.

[MaggieCarta]

Giggle.