Evolution: hacking back the tree of life (can anyone say DEVOLUTION?)

New Scientist ^ | June 13, 2007 | Laura Spinney

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Ping

[GodGunsGuts]

Just as I suspected. The evidence in favor of creation is growing with each passing day.

[GodGunsGuts]

As the Creationists have been saying all along, the pattern in nature suggests this:

Not this:

[Rudder]

...there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase.

Forty-plus years as a life-scientist and I never heard of this rule. Must be a straw man.

[betty boop]

Thanks so much for the ping, GGG! Bookmarked for later perusal....

[Coyoteman]

Just as I suspected. The evidence in favor of creation is growing with each passing day.

Take off rose-colored glasses and read for content. This article is not supporting creationism, it is supplying additional details for evolution. In doing so, the theory of evolution is becoming more accurate, not less.

Note also that half billion year figure. That would seem to be a bit hard to reconcile with YEC, but I don't doubt you will manage somehow.

[GodGunsGuts]

Nope. The Evolutionists are being forced to come around to what Creationists have been saying all along. The dominant pattern in nature is Devolution, not Evolution.

[GodGunsGuts]

==This article is not supporting creationism, it is supplying additional details for evolution. In doing so, the theory of evolution is becoming more accurate, not less.

You are quite correct. Whenever the theory of evolution veers towards Creationism it automatically becomes more accurate.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Note also that half billion year figure. That would seem to be a bit hard to reconcile with YEC, but I don’t doubt you will manage somehow.

The evolutionary time frame will also come tumbling down. And then the TOE will be forced to move even closer to Creation Science. Time, as they say, is on our side d:op

[dan1123]

>> Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. <<

This is the main reason why I found biology intellectually uninteresting. The similar macro-features => similar micro-features logical leap makes biology seem too ridiculous to be real science.

[Rudder]

The Evolutionists are being forced to come around to what Creationists have been saying all along. The dominant pattern in nature is Devolution, not Evolution.

Not on this planet.

[muawiyah]

None of this supports Creationism. It does, however, strongly suggest separate origins ~ that not all the critters on Earth derive entirely from critters that lived here.

[GodGunsGuts]

You will get no argument from me. Perhaps this newfound realization of the utter ridiculousness of Darwin’s tree of life will breath a fresh sense of wonder back into the dead end that has become evolutionary biology.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Not on this planet.

It has already begun. Darwin’s TOE is on the way out. It’s only a matter of time.

[ThinkClearly]

The evolutionary time frame will also come tumbling down.

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...how? Please enlighten us with how you feel the scientific community is moving closer to supporting young earth creationism. I've got to hear this.

[GodGunsGuts]

They just did.

[ThinkClearly]

No, they didn't.

The article YOU submitted references time scales of billions of years.

So much time passing, in fact, that evolution almost knowingly decelerates itself to be more efficient and productive.

[bert]

You are wrong..... read up on the Burgess Shale.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

No, actually the pattern in nature is more like: