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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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.
I see you beat a certain someone to the punch :o)
Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Now that superior opponents have taken the field, the Evos aren't scoring anymore...and they're angry as spoiled children about it.
>> They sure as hell sold it that way. <<
Don’t blame biologists for the grotesque simplifications of school teachers and journalists ... but seriously, I’ve seen variants of “the Tree of Life” in just about biology text book I’ve ever seen, even dinosaur books, etc. But it was almost always used to illustrate phylogenies, and to show when groups of animals existed. It’s hard to make the case that it was offered as proof when almost all of the stems were dotted lines with question marks along side them. If anything, they were a good illustration of how much remained unknown, lest a student otherwise get the impression that “missing links” existed.
The reason they fell into some disfavor was that the phylogenic relationships (which had been based largely on gross anatomy) seemed incompatible with DNA.
I’m concerned that what’s really going on here is that a lot of interesting questions, poised by the incompatibility of the phylogenic Tree of Life and genetic relations, are about to get swept under the rug... and no-one ever will feel the need to explain why birds, which look to gross anatomists so much like dinosaurs, have DNA much more similar to frogs.
I guess so, thanks for the ping(s). You can see by the wat they talk it always was a religion: Evolution does this and evolution selects that and time created this. They even have an holy trinity. Evolution is the father, time is the spirit, and Darwin is the saviour.
Every person needs religion.
It would seem you are equating the biblical kinds with the species level. That is not a correct creationist understanding of the created kinds. You might want to give the following a quick read, as it points out what creatinists mean with respect to “each according to its kins.”
As opposed to more similar to dinosaurs?
Yeah, it’s what makes my religion real and palatable.
“Transmission and propagation of infectious retroviruses among the host population could have helped in maintenance of the endogenous viral sequences via recombination, in a way similar to recombinational DNA repair and modern gene therapy. (Indeed, retroviruses have been used as the classic vectors in gene therapy because of their ability to integrate into host chromosomes.) Interactions between endogenous and exogenous retroviruses may have been perfectly regulated at the time of creation.”
For more, see:
A little off subject. What always drives me nuts is "roundness".
The sun, the moon, the stars...the orbits..
I think Darwin uses the same "roundness" concept and tries to apply it to man except his end products are all point to point and exclusive. In other words, his theory fails.
P.S. I'm 93 hours into quiting smoking. Brain overwrought!!
And like spoiled children, they are still seeking to avoid the obvious and the necessary.
yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.
Publishing entire genomes on the internet and providing the tools to make comparisons seems a funny way to sweep things under the rug.
By the way, I think you will find birds more closely related to reptiles than to frogs.
The sun, moon and stars AREN’T round, but don’t even get me into the unevenness of space.
I would appreciate a link to your source for this information.
(reposted to correct typo)
For the most part, ID Scientists agree with common descent and evolution of man from simple life forms that arose in a chemical pool.
I think he is mixing up his movies with his creationist websites.
The field of biology has never been more productive in terms of information and application.
The “superior opponents” have produced nothing in terms of information that they didn't already “know” and certainly a big fat zero in terms of application.
Creationists are still fiddling with themselves in the locker room while imagining they are out on the field, while actual scientists score touchdown after touchdown and go home with the cheerleader.
It seems to me that the inter-related web of complexity-of-design, in the so-called “horizontal gene transfer” is most plausibly accounted for by commonalities in a Designer, than by some unaccounted-for cross-special transfer.
Just as Ferraris and Fiats share certain core parts (circuits, lightbulbs, steel, copper, rubber, etc) while being completely different animals, as it were, and the most logical explanation—and what we know from history—is commonality of the designer (or designers, in this case). So too it makes sense that from the molecular level, into DNA/RNA, on up to the shape of an eye, or the hands of man and monkeys, the commonality was originally found in the mind of God—not some imagined utterly-hypothetical inter-species transfer.
Thank God the tree is falling...may the web not ensnare us also!
(It is interesting how the models for science follow the prevailing philosophies of the day, eh? Modernism was all about universal paradigms (like that of a Tree), while post-modernism is all about a Web of related-ness, and skepticism toward any universals).
But God created man in his image. Do animals also share this commonality? Strange that God thought so little of man as to use his old design and not come up with perfect ones.
“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.”
Dr. Norman Macbeth
>> Publishing entire genomes on the internet and providing the tools to make comparisons seems a funny way to sweep things under the rug. <<
Gee,really? I said that what was being swept under the rug was why Dinosaurs have DNA more similar to frogs, which was a relationship that was incompatible with traditional, anatomically based phylogeny. And you show me a traditional, anatomically based phylogeny to prove to me that Dinosaur DNA isn’t more similar to frogs???
Incidentally, that’s a great site for illustrating how the anatomically based phylogenists can’t agree on a single clade, isn’t it?
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Charles Darwin
“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such. Pope Benedict XVI
“This collaboration will produce a powerful resource to investigate the patterns of molecular variation across the rice genome, assess evolutionary forces shaping rice and discover genes controlling important traits such as disease resistance, drought tolerance and nutritional value. In the long term, this information will be used to improve rice, and it will also help scientists better understand how to improve other crop plants.”
When did Mr. NM get promoted to DR?
“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.”
Dr. W.R. Thompson
Norman Macbeth the lawyer with no ‘formal’ (or informal for that matter) science education?
Why is it that Creationists always seem to go to lawyers for their science education?
And we have no evidence that one damn word in that whole statement is true.