Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Creationists have been saying this for decades!)
New Scientist ^ | January 21, 2009 | Graham Lawton

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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: atheisticmorons; christianmythology; christianmyths; creation; creeation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; mythology; myths; religiousmyths; superstition; treeoflife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2009 6:37:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Notice that New Scientist admits that Darwin’s 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 Darwin’s 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 tree—it 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 Darwin’s tree for over 150 years.


2 posted on 02/24/2009 6:38:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.

I’m just saying...


3 posted on 02/24/2009 6:39:16 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Ya really got ‘em goin’ yesterday, GGG!
4 posted on 02/24/2009 6:39:53 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for posting.


5 posted on 02/24/2009 6:41:27 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

6 posted on 02/24/2009 6:47:16 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Yep, they keep getting angrier and angrier. That says alot about how much confidence they place in their so-called “theory.”


7 posted on 02/24/2009 6:48:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

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?


8 posted on 02/24/2009 6:51:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Isnt Tree of Life part of ID ? They all pass the design detection meaning commonality. Is this Creation vs ID?


9 posted on 02/24/2009 6:51:10 AM PST by sickoflibs (Keynesian Economics : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And since quotations make 'em really flip out...

"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

10 posted on 02/24/2009 6:54:17 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


11 posted on 02/24/2009 6:54:59 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

==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!


12 posted on 02/24/2009 6:55:46 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.

I’m 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.

13 posted on 02/24/2009 6:57:29 AM PST by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


14 posted on 02/24/2009 6:57:33 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution is not compatible with Christianity...


15 posted on 02/24/2009 6:58:03 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
but it was not the evidence for Darwin.

They sure as hell sold it that way.

16 posted on 02/24/2009 6:58:25 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

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!


17 posted on 02/24/2009 6:59:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The "tree of life" has always been just a metaphor to assist in explaining Darwin's ideas, not his core idea. The article argues that it is too simple and reality is much more complicated.

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.

18 posted on 02/24/2009 6:59:54 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA

==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.


19 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:15 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“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.


20 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:39 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

I see you beat a certain someone to the punch :o)


21 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:47 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
How does that square with

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.

22 posted on 02/24/2009 7:07:28 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
For a long time, creationists were sittin’ in the locker room, while the Evos were runnin’ up and down the field, thinking they were scoring real points.

Now that superior opponents have taken the field, the Evos aren't scoring anymore...and they're angry as spoiled children about it.

23 posted on 02/24/2009 7:07:35 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
No, scripture is the LIVING WORD of God.
24 posted on 02/24/2009 7:08:20 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

>> 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.


25 posted on 02/24/2009 7:09:06 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


26 posted on 02/24/2009 7:09:59 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DManA

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.”

http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind


27 posted on 02/24/2009 7:12:32 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dangus
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.

As opposed to more similar to dinosaurs?

28 posted on 02/24/2009 7:13:28 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Yeah, it’s what makes my religion real and palatable.


29 posted on 02/24/2009 7:14:11 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Finding what they classify as "snake genome" in a cow only shows that they don't understand what in the world they are talking about.
30 posted on 02/24/2009 7:16:37 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“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:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good


31 posted on 02/24/2009 7:16:47 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
So, how did rocks evolve?? And water?

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!!

32 posted on 02/24/2009 7:17:00 AM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

And like spoiled children, they are still seeking to avoid the obvious and the necessary.


33 posted on 02/24/2009 7:18:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: js1138

yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.


34 posted on 02/24/2009 7:21:36 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dangus
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.

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.

35 posted on 02/24/2009 7:23:30 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The sun, moon and stars AREN’T round, but don’t even get me into the unevenness of space.


36 posted on 02/24/2009 7:23:33 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dangus
yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.p>I would appreciate a link to your source for this information.
37 posted on 02/24/2009 7:24:41 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dangus
yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.

I would appreciate a link to your source for this information.

(reposted to correct typo)

38 posted on 02/24/2009 7:26:44 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
(and more recently ID Scientists)

For the most part, ID Scientists agree with common descent and evolution of man from simple life forms that arose in a chemical pool.

39 posted on 02/24/2009 7:27:03 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138; dangus

I think he is mixing up his movies with his creationist websites.


40 posted on 02/24/2009 7:29:14 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Delusional.

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.

41 posted on 02/24/2009 7:29:24 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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).


42 posted on 02/24/2009 7:32:02 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
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

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.

43 posted on 02/24/2009 7:35:16 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“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


44 posted on 02/24/2009 7:37:08 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: js1138

>> 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?


45 posted on 02/24/2009 7:38:01 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

“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.”

Jan Leach


46 posted on 02/24/2009 7:41:28 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Dr. Norman Macbeth

When did Mr. NM get promoted to DR?

47 posted on 02/24/2009 7:41:39 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.”

Dr. W.R. Thompson


48 posted on 02/24/2009 7:43:16 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

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?


49 posted on 02/24/2009 7:44:45 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

And we have no evidence that one damn word in that whole statement is true.

50 posted on 02/24/2009 7:44:48 AM PST by org.whodat (Auto unions bad: Machinists union good=Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson