Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 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 ...


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 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Dutchboy88
Are you willing to reevaluate the theory that reevaluating theories is a strength? Didn’t 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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Yes, it’s excellent. Have you read it?


23 posted on 02/20/2009 9:04:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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?


24 posted on 02/20/2009 9:04:59 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.


30 posted on 02/20/2009 10:14:13 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
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?

LOL, excellent. It's all so clear now.
32 posted on 02/20/2009 10:51:04 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.


33 posted on 02/20/2009 10:56:29 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

So do you.


37 posted on 02/20/2009 11:57:57 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Nothing can diminish the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism because it is a fanatical religion masquerading as science.


38 posted on 02/20/2009 11:58:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Grumpy today aren’t we?


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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson