Skip to comments.Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Creationists have been saying this for decades!)
Posted on 02/24/2009 6:37:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution.
For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Notice that New Scientist admits that Darwins theory would not have gotten off the ground without the acceptance of his so-called Tree of Life. Creation Scientists have been pointing out that Darwins tree did not fit the evidence ever since its inception. If you read Origins, you will note that Darwin could not supply any scientific data to back up his treeit was purely hypothetical. And yet the Evos bought it, hook, line and sinker. Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that Creation Scientists (and more recently ID Scientists) have been pointing out the lack of evidence for Darwins tree for over 150 years.
There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.
I’m just saying...
Thanks for posting.
Yep, they keep getting angrier and angrier. That says alot about how much confidence they place in their so-called “theory.”
Excellent graphic! The gaps are pretty much the same as they were 150 years ago. What does that say about the predictive value of Darwin’s “theory” of evolution?
Isnt Tree of Life part of ID ? They all pass the design detection meaning commonality. Is this Creation vs ID?
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian
You’re totally misreading it. The problems being found currently with the “Tree of Life” were not comprehensible to Darwin or creationists, and the solution is no closer to short-earth creationism, and in fact explains away many of the problems which have plagued evolution. The fact that more highly evolved organisms may be chimeras of other organisms, for instance, explains complications of features which mere sexual selection could not.
The Tree of Life was helpful in getting the general public to understand Darwin, but it was not the evidence for Darwin.
— An “Old-Earth” creationist.
==There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.
Quite true, but that’s a different tree. Let’s not forget, that Creationists predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees, with each organism being created separately, fully formed and fully functional. Take away the the hypothetical cross webbing in the new “Web of Life” the Evos are now postulating with respect to horizonal gene transfer, and that is pretty much what you are left with, an orchard of trees!
Im just saying...
There is another tree of life, Revelation.
And we will partake of this tree.
Had a friend, (killed in car wreck recently) who once told me he knew what fruit was on this tree. He said it had to be a Main-go tree because he loved them so much.
The Creation Scientists have been pointing to far more than just DNA evidence. But come to think of it, they have been pointing to the DNA evidence for quite some time now as well.
Evolution is not compatible with Christianity...
They sure as hell sold it that way.
Excellent quote. And oh so true! Just goes to show that the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is not based on science...it’s a religion. And the sooner Christians wake up to this fact, the better....and when they do, watch out!
But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? ....We now know that this is exactly what happens.
This is even more of a problem than the tree of life for those who treat the Bible as a science book.
==This is even more of a problem than the tree of life for those who treat the Bible as a science book.
Not at all, Creation Scientists have been positing horizontal gene transfer as a possible purpose for ERVs for years.
“The “tree of life” has always been just a metaphor...”
One could say, a religious icon or relic, like the Catholics have, to make their religion more real and palatable. That makes sense to me. Every religion needs their relics. Mine is the Holy Scripture.