Posted on 02/20/2009 8:35:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Darwinists Topple Darwin’s Tree of Life
Darwin’s “Tree of Life” is a myth. It’s based on circular reasoning. It is a pattern imposed on the data, not a fact emerging from the evidence. We should give up the search for a single tree of life (TOL) as a record of the history of life on earth, because it is a “quixotic pursuit” unlikely to succeed – and the evidence is against it. Who said this? Not creationists, but a new member of the National Academy of Sciences in his inaugural paper for the academy’s Proceedings.1
W. Ford Doolittle and Eric Bapteste decided to celebrate this inauguration with fireworks. What they wrote is less a scientific paper than a reprimand. They let Darwin-lovers have it between the eyes:
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Ping!
Not another one of these goofy threads...
Agreed!
I was wondering. Since you don’t like these threads, it would seem that you might want to evolve past looking at them.
Why is it goofy? Newton didn’t understand relativity so calculus is wrong and a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is proven. What’s so hard about that?
People who have a fundamental, unrecognized insecurity about their core values will grasp at any thread that can keep their mental house of cards from crashing about their head.
A progressive world view, no doubt.
...but, I thought FR was a conservative site.
hrmph
These threads are the daily spam mail here on FR. GG&G (sounds like a company!) is the purveyor. They’re actually pretty good for comic relief if you don’t take them seriously.
A progressive world view, no doubt.
No, a scientific world view. Being willing to reevaluate theories in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness.
Are you willing to reevaluate the theory that reevaluating theories is a strength? Didn’t you say that was “strength”?
The other versions of evoloserism, particularly “punk-eek”, have just as many problems as Darwinian gradualism if not more. Walter Remine notes that no one version of the business is logically consistent or coherent and so what we actually get from evolosers at this juncture is what he calls a “smorgasbord”, i.e. a plate filled with various bits and pieces from each of the several versions.
==Being willing to reevaluate theories in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness.
True enough. But let’s not forget that creation scientists have been predicting the demise of Darwin’s tree of life ever since he published his first (unscientific) book on origins. As such, creation science is strengthened, and neo-Darwinian evolution is severely diminished.
Your intellectual problem is the desperate need for absolute certainty.
It is not necessary to be absolutely certain. It is ok to probe to better understand
Thanks for the ping!
I read most of Remine’s book a while back. Excellent read, but a tad difficult to get through in places. I think it’s time I picked it back up and finished it. Thanks for the reminder!
All the best—GGG
“I read most of Remine’s book a while back.”
The message theory book? The self-published one?
Let him pretend.
“Newton didn’t understand relativity so calculus is wrong and a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is proven. “
Ha! Thankfully, then, we have Leibniz!
Like I said...
An evloving progressive evolutionary theory.
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.