For His Birthday, Darwin Loses His Tree

CEH ^ | January 22, 2009

[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:...

[GodGunsGuts]

“...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom....”

—Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863.

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

—Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, 1881. Died 1882.

[GodGunsGuts]

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twelfth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, a proclamation was issued by the, people of the world, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

That on the twelfth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine,
all Darwin doubters held as captives within any scientific community or designated
part of an academic institution, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the Darwin Party, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the
administration of any institution, including the hiring and firing authority thereof,
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
acts to expel such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for
their actual freedom of inquiry.

That on this day, hereby to be designated Academic Freedom Day, that inquiries
into the actual nature of the living things, including their design, and their
functional information, and their origins, shall henceforth be decoupled from any
and all slavish requirement of metaphysical naturalism, or any other such limits
on free and honest investigation toward following the evidence where it leads, as
befits the quest to discover and understand the sources and operations of nature.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the
principles of noble science, upon academic necessity, I invoke the considerate
judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Witnesseth,

The Spirit of A. Lincoln
Academic Freedom Day

[svcw]

I know I have said this before but it still stands.

My dad said to the point all us kids rolled our eyes: We had plenty of ancestors that swung by their necks but none by their tails.

Its still funny.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...I’ll have to remember that one!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[4Speed]

Evolution continues without the Tree, without Darwin, and without 99 % Acceptance by Religious scholars.
An Irresistable force,that is not dependant upon Recognition or Acceptance.

[allmendream]

No scientific theory is dependent upon recognition or public acceptance, only that it helps to explain and predict data.

In its ability to explain and predict data, Darwin's theory was top notch; that is why scientists still use his theoretical framework in thousands of ongoing studies to this day, and for the foreseeable future.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"No scientific theory is dependent upon recognition or public acceptance, only that it helps to explain and predict data."

I completely agree with you both on the above point.

However, the issue is a lot bigger than simply changing a metaphor. Please read the "New Scientist" article. Here's an excerpt (I've bolded parts):

****************************

"Rose goes even further. "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.

If he is right, the tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. "The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on."

***************

Just as Newtonian physics continues to be used by laymen, for most day-to-day activities -- Darwin's "tree of life", will continue to be useful. Nevertheless, it seems that a significant paradigm shift has occurred in the field of evolution.

Darwin didn't have DNA evidence available to him. He drew the best conclusions he could, based on what he could observe. In every field of science, as our powers of observation increase (through better tools), new breakthroughs have been made. Sometimes (as in the case of quantum mechanics vs. Newtonian physics), the old theory is discarded, or revealed as only a subset of a larger truth.

Please note: none of the above is an argument for ID, or CS. Adherents of Darwin's theory, who profess to be supporters of the scientific method, must be willing to let go of old paradigms, and embrace new theories, as the evidence dictates.