The Tree of Life is a model illustrating the relationships between species. The relationships show the common descent of life on earth. It's like a jigsaw puzzle with millions of pieces (fossils and living species). After diligent research by generations of scientists -- not only biologists, but scientists from separate disciplines like geology, paleontology, organic chemistry, astronomy, and nuclear physics (for radiometric dating techniques) -- the pieces all fit. They lock into place in several independently cross-confirming ways, including form, function, chronology, and molecular biochemistry.
When jigsaw puzzles are properly assembled, a picture emerges; with data, a scientific theory emerges. In this case, the "picture" is the theory of evolution. There are still some missing pieces, and there probably always will be, but the evidence now assembled is more than sufficient to reveal the picture. There is so much evidence that at this point, the picture itself can confidently be used as a guide for predicting the fit of new pieces that are found. When they are put in place, DNA evidence shows a close, pre-existing relationship of the pieces that we've fitted together, thus confirming the picture; any re-arranging the pieces would be inconsistent with such evidence.
Other well-established theories function similarly. For example, after decades of matching stellar distances (determined by Cepheid variables) with the redshift of their images, the redshift alone is now used as a reliable guide to distance -- subject to verification whenever a Cepheid variable is available, which always confirms the redshift's information.Creationists are forever claiming that the evolutionary picture revealed by the evidentiary jigsaw puzzle is nothing more than the arbitrary result of our prejudices, and that by using different presuppositions the puzzle's pieces could be assembled some other way, and the pieces would match up just as well -- but presumably would show their own preferred picture. So why don't they ever do it?
Instead of actually doing research, they always ask: "Where are the transitional fossils?" When presented with a truckload of them, they claim that they're all fakes, or they sometimes retreat to their fallback position: "Why don't you have more transitional fossils?" We find more every year, but somehow they are never enough for the creationists. No matter how many more are found, they will never be enough. They are the OJ jury, for whom no amount of evidence will suffice. They never stop to consider that even one transitional fossil contradicts the concept of special creation.
But the questions should flow in the other direction. Creationist should be asked: "Where are the anachronistic fossils -- the preposterous fossils, the incongruous fossils that we should expect if the tree of life is incorrect?"
If they want to challenge the tree of life, let them produce something like a pegasus fossil, or any other evidence that is inconsistent, incompatible, and irreconcilable with the theory of evolution.
That means genetic information can be acquired by critters independent of the "tree of life" formulation.
That doesn't make Creationism correct (obviously), but it does suggest that doctrinaire adherence to a rigid, self-contained "tree of life" mantra really isn't theologically diferent from the Creationist point of view.
Gad!
The analogy to red shift is also not sound scientifically, but as a lay explanation is fine. Don't ever confuse the two and forget DNA in living organisms propigated by reproduction over time is not the same as particles of light travelling in space.
Here is a better tree of life project.
Also, I am not sure if the text accompanying the post (10) is yours or from the project page in Arizona. eg, "Creationists are forever claiming that the evolutionary picture revealed by the evidentiary jigsaw puzzle is nothing more than the arbitrary result of our prejudices..."
Is this your writing or is it taken from the Arizona ToL project?
Thanks.
Possibly a poor choice of words, there, PH. If you meant "produce" as in "to present" or "to display", yes.
But I shudder to think of some of the more zealous adherents of ID attempting to concoct such a fossil and pass it off as legitimate, using the justification "well, look at the platypus, it doesn't make sense either."
Full Disclosure: Harpies don't count. We already have mentions of Helen Thomas photos in the first few replies...
Cheers!