This is the assertion that many who object to teaching evolution as fact are making: that evolutionist don't want to let go of the theory of evolution because they don't have something to replace it with. Arguments that scientists in the documentary "Icons of Evolution" make seem reasonable to me and worth further investigation. Maybe you have answers for all that, which I'd be interested to hear. To me, the tree of life looks extremely primative and silly.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father [Rev. Sun Myung Moon] chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells. Wells is a Senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
If you're serious about wanting to learn, try The List-O-Links.
Well, if it looks extremely primitive and silly then it could not possibly be accurate could it?
If you have a better method if diagramming a nested hierarchy I suggest you present it here for all to see.
You go girl!
or to put it differently,
I think you made valid points in a reasoned way. Don't let these joksters intimidate you. Many of the posted replies are designed to intimidate rather than to illuminate. Reason and fact may lead toward, or away from, evolution - only you can decide. I can see that you will remain resolute in thinking for yourself.