Posted on 01/22/2009 9:38:46 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
For His Birthday, Darwin Loses His Tree
Jan 22, 2009 — The “tree of life” is the central icon of Darwinism. Charles Darwin’s only illustration in the Origin of Species was a drawing of organisms descending from a common ancestor in a branching tree pattern. It has been reproduced, expanded, embellished and decorated into a primal symbol of what science believes about biology. Why, then, are The Telegraph and New Scientist cutting it down? “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” is the title of the latter, and the former says, “Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists.”
These articles are notable not just for their timing (just three weeks before the international celebrations of Darwin’s 200th birthday), but for undermining three claims about evolutionary biology...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
ping!
I’m sure that evos have always predicted that the tree would come down. (/sarc)
Thanks for the ping!
I wonder what else he was wrong about.
Or maybe someone has been reading his metaphors all wrong all these years.
Obozo did it! The “blame Bush” reasoning is no longer applicable.
Can you dig it? Or should I say dig it up :o)
For the last couple of years I have been saying that the Evos are finally realizing that the science Creationists and IDers use to falsify the neo-Darwinian ToE is in fact true. They are busy trying to come up with a new materialist (read: godless) theory of evolution to hugely modify or even replace the old one. Here is a case and point:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/credibility_gap_in_damage_cont.html
From the article .... “We understand evolution pretty well it’s just it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn’t the only pattern.”
From page 284 of a more recent work on Darwin, “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones ...
“To track down the most distant links and draw a new pedigree of life needs characters that are almost universal; genes at work so deep within the cell as to resist almost all change and to retain clues about their earliest origin. A hunt for similarity through the dozen and more DNA sequences now known in all their detail, and the hundreds for which long segments have been worked out, reveals the very framework of our existence. About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution.”
More creationist nonsense placemarker.
He was obviosly wrong on just about everything except that species change ever so slightly over time. Darwin used that small piece of evidence as a license to write an entire bio-history of Earth with no additional evidence whatsoever. This is where we get the “tree of life” (which is in the process of FINALLY being hacked down).
Because the science is not perfect and needs to be refined over time, everything he has ever said must be wrong. Is that the point you guys are trying to make?
Nothing new about that. The General Theory of Evolution has been repeatedly tweaked and given makeovers ever since it was first proposed. As soon as one claim or another is disproved—the most egregious of which was the notorious “ontongeny recapitulates philogeny,” complete with faked illustrations—then the theory is taken down, modified, and set back up on its altar again for Darwinists to worship.
==Because the science is not perfect and needs to be refined over time, everything he has ever said must be wrong.
Neo-Darwinism is in the process of being completely overturned. And for reasons that Creationists (and more recently) IDers have maintained all along. And when Darwin’s tree of life comes crashing down, and the dust finally settles, you will see Creation/ID standing tall, completely unshaken. I hate to say it (ok, actually I love saying it) WE TOLD YOU SO!
Including that there were dinosaurs on noah's ark?
That's called the scientific method.
LOL!
A process that creationists have assured us can’t happen (horizontal gene transfer), identified by evilutionists, is the basis for creationists claiming that evolution is obsolete.
Best joke of the week.
==A process that creationists have assured us can’t happen (horizontal gene transfer), identified by evilutionists, is the basis for creationists claiming that evolution is obsolete.
Wrong!
Were Retroviruses Created Good?
by Dr. Yingguang Liu
December 20,2006
“And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31)
Abstract
Retroviruses that are not normally present in healthy hosts are called exogenous viruses, while DNA sequences in cellular genomes that are homologous to retroviruses are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). While the belief that all ERVs are remnants of germline infection seems logical, there are also facts against the endogenization theory, such as xenotropic ERVs and essentiality of some ERVs in host physiology. Syncytins, products of the env gene of HERV-W and HERV-FRD, contribute to human placenta development. Similar genes are also found in mouse and sheep. Indeed, the sheep ERV genes have been shown essential for sheep reproduction. Furthermore, regulation of the human syncytin-1 gene involves a complex regulation network including both viral and host factors. Conclusion: While intact ERVs with positional polymorphism are likely germline copies of exogenous viruses, ERVs with fixed locations and conserved beneficial genes may have been incorporated into the host genome at the time of creation. Exogenous retroviruses may have been created to help the ERVs and to transfer useful genes between hosts.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good
Oh, dear. No use arguing with invincible ignorance. My reservations about the General Theory are scientific, not religious. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that one species changes into another, and the odds are astronomically against what Darwin proposed.
Which is why some recent evolutionists have been obliged to turn to the currently fashionable theory that there are an infinite number of universes, just so it would be conceivably possible that things would have come about as we see them in our universe.
Certainly there is intraspecies evolution. Nobody doubts that. But the theory of selection simply makes no sense when it comes to basic things like growing wings or eyes. Until they are sufficiently developed to be usable, half-developed eyes and wings would be impediments making the individual less fit, not advantages.
The theory of evolution cannot be absolutely disproved, because it is a circular argument. But neither can it be proved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.