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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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