[GodGunsGuts]

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.

[dangus]

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.

[DManA]

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.

[ColdWater]

(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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[conservativebabe]

The thing I find so interesting is how evolutionists say that ID advocates are not “scientists”. Yet, in the face of actual scientific discovery which is helping to crumble the theory of evolution, they ignore the science themselves in order to so desperately hang on to a theory they WANT to be true.

[count-your-change]

Indeed as a conceptual tool the use of a tree was very smart. But that is the point, it a concept in the eye of the beholder, the relationships are in the eye of the classifier, not in reality.

You can argue, demonstrate, prove that the Emperor has no clothes and that there is no Emperor either and his footmen will still take the credit saying they convinced the crowds of that fact.

[SantaLuz]

If a spindly picture of a tree falls in the forest and no rational person is around to observe it, does it still make a sound?