Skip to comments.
Darwinists Topple Darwin’s Tree of Life (it's about time!)
CEH ^
Posted on 02/20/2009 8:35:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Darwinists Topple Darwins Tree of Life
Darwins Tree of Life is a myth. Its 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 academys 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 ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: academy; biologists; biology; carlwoese; circular; circularargument; complex; complexity; connections; creation; darwin; ericbapteste; evolution; evolutionary; evolutionarytheory; fallen; gene; geneswapping; hgt; horizontal; hypothesis; inheritance; intelligentdesign; lamarck; lateral; lgt; national; nature; nigelgoldenfield; phylogenetic; phylogenetics; proceedings; reasoning; revision; sciences; spam; transfer; translation; translational; treeoflife; wforddoolittle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: Dutchboy88
Are you willing to reevaluate the theory that reevaluating theories is a strength? Didnt you say that was strength? Actually, I said that reevaluating theories in the face of new evidence is a strength. Do you disagree?
21
posted on
02/20/2009 9:02:47 AM PST
by
GL of Sector 2814
(One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word. -- R A Heinlein)
To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Have you made a similar complaint to the nitwit who posts 43 anti-McCain articles per day?
22
posted on
02/20/2009 9:03:45 AM PST
by
Cedric
To: Buck W.
Yes, it’s excellent. Have you read it?
To: GL of Sector 2814
Perhaps. If a scientist comes up with “evidence” that you do not exist, are you willing to consider that you do not exist?
To: GodGunsGuts
No. I’m waiting for a publisher who is willing to stake its reputation on the content to print the next edition.
25
posted on
02/20/2009 9:09:28 AM PST
by
Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
To: GL of Sector 2814
Being willing to reevaluate theories in the face of new evidence is a strength, not a weakness. Hear! Hear!
26
posted on
02/20/2009 9:18:53 AM PST
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: Dutchboy88
“If a scientist comes up with evidence that you do not exist, are you willing to consider that you do not exist?”
How would one measure such evidence?
27
posted on
02/20/2009 9:21:46 AM PST
by
Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
To: Dutchboy88
If a scientist comes up with evidence that you do not exist, are you willing to consider that you do not exist?Illogical. The fact that the scientist comes up with evidence that I do not exist means I do exist, else how could he know I'm here?
28
posted on
02/20/2009 9:27:39 AM PST
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: yankeedame
This thread reminds me of the dyslexic agnostic insomniac that would stay awake all night wondering if there really was a dog!
29
posted on
02/20/2009 10:03:23 AM PST
by
wow
(I can't give you a brain. But I can provide a diploma.)
To: yankeedame
Read the New Scientist magazine. They claim evidence is emerging that you are simply a hologram.
If you reject this, your rejection is exercised using some of the same reasoning that other folks look at “common descent” (the true hallmark of evolution, incedentaly, not natural selection) and reject its illogic.
To: GodGunsGuts
Evolution is perfectly compatible with environmentalism.
31
posted on
02/20/2009 10:18:58 AM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: swain_forkbeard
Newton didnt understand relativity so calculus is wrong and a literal interpretation of the Old Testament is proven. Whats so hard about that?
LOL, excellent. It's all so clear now.
To: GodGunsGuts
I cannot for the life of me figure out how this article in any way, shape or form diminishes evolutionary theory.
Creationists are weird.
To: Cedric
No I have not. So sue me.
34
posted on
02/20/2009 10:59:56 AM PST
by
Virginia Ridgerunner
(Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
To: Cedric
Have you made a similar complaint to the nitwit who posts 43 anti-McCain articles per day? I HATE that guy!
35
posted on
02/20/2009 11:50:12 AM PST
by
Ken H
To: Ken H
He does serve as a good argument against evolution.
36
posted on
02/20/2009 11:57:20 AM PST
by
Cedric
To: Virginia Ridgerunner
37
posted on
02/20/2009 11:57:57 AM PST
by
Cedric
To: whattajoke
Nothing can diminish the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism because it is a fanatical religion masquerading as science.
To: GodGunsGuts
But the tree of life was such a handy tool. Way out on a limb was an animal and close to the trunk was another with nothing in between, giving the idea that one led to the other.
Nice, neat and visual but wrong.
39
posted on
02/20/2009 12:18:32 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Cedric
40
posted on
02/20/2009 1:27:12 PM PST
by
Virginia Ridgerunner
(Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson