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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Creationists have been saying this for decades!)
New Scientist ^ | January 21, 2009 | Graham Lawton

Posted on 02/24/2009 6:37:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

...

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution.

...

For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change...

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: atheisticmorons; christianmythology; christianmyths; creation; creeation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; mythology; myths; religiousmyths; superstition; treeoflife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-202 next last
To: demshateGod

I see you beat a certain someone to the punch :o)


21 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:47 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
How does that square with

Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

22 posted on 02/24/2009 7:07:28 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
For a long time, creationists were sittin’ in the locker room, while the Evos were runnin’ up and down the field, thinking they were scoring real points.

Now that superior opponents have taken the field, the Evos aren't scoring anymore...and they're angry as spoiled children about it.

23 posted on 02/24/2009 7:07:35 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
No, scripture is the LIVING WORD of God.
24 posted on 02/24/2009 7:08:20 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

>> They sure as hell sold it that way. <<

Don’t blame biologists for the grotesque simplifications of school teachers and journalists ... but seriously, I’ve seen variants of “the Tree of Life” in just about biology text book I’ve ever seen, even dinosaur books, etc. But it was almost always used to illustrate phylogenies, and to show when groups of animals existed. It’s hard to make the case that it was offered as proof when almost all of the stems were dotted lines with question marks along side them. If anything, they were a good illustration of how much remained unknown, lest a student otherwise get the impression that “missing links” existed.

The reason they fell into some disfavor was that the phylogenic relationships (which had been based largely on gross anatomy) seemed incompatible with DNA.

I’m concerned that what’s really going on here is that a lot of interesting questions, poised by the incompatibility of the phylogenic Tree of Life and genetic relations, are about to get swept under the rug... and no-one ever will feel the need to explain why birds, which look to gross anatomists so much like dinosaurs, have DNA much more similar to frogs.


25 posted on 02/24/2009 7:09:06 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I guess so, thanks for the ping(s). You can see by the wat they talk it always was a religion: Evolution does this and evolution selects that and time created this. They even have an holy trinity. Evolution is the father, time is the spirit, and Darwin is the saviour.

Every person needs religion.


26 posted on 02/24/2009 7:09:59 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DManA

It would seem you are equating the biblical kinds with the species level. That is not a correct creationist understanding of the created kinds. You might want to give the following a quick read, as it points out what creatinists mean with respect to “each according to its kins.”

http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind


27 posted on 02/24/2009 7:12:32 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dangus
and no-one ever will feel the need to explain why birds, which look to gross anatomists so much like dinosaurs, have DNA much more similar to frogs.

As opposed to more similar to dinosaurs?

28 posted on 02/24/2009 7:13:28 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Yeah, it’s what makes my religion real and palatable.


29 posted on 02/24/2009 7:14:11 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Finding what they classify as "snake genome" in a cow only shows that they don't understand what in the world they are talking about.
30 posted on 02/24/2009 7:16:37 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“Transmission and propagation of infectious retroviruses among the host population could have helped in maintenance of the endogenous viral sequences via recombination, in a way similar to recombinational DNA repair and modern gene therapy. (Indeed, retroviruses have been used as the classic vectors in gene therapy because of their ability to integrate into host chromosomes.) Interactions between endogenous and exogenous retroviruses may have been perfectly regulated at the time of creation.”

For more, see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good


31 posted on 02/24/2009 7:16:47 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
So, how did rocks evolve?? And water?

A little off subject. What always drives me nuts is "roundness".

The sun, the moon, the stars...the orbits..

I think Darwin uses the same "roundness" concept and tries to apply it to man except his end products are all point to point and exclusive. In other words, his theory fails.

P.S. I'm 93 hours into quiting smoking. Brain overwrought!!

32 posted on 02/24/2009 7:17:00 AM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

And like spoiled children, they are still seeking to avoid the obvious and the necessary.


33 posted on 02/24/2009 7:18:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: js1138

yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.


34 posted on 02/24/2009 7:21:36 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I’m concerned that what’s really going on here is that a lot of interesting questions, poised by the incompatibility of the phylogenic Tree of Life and genetic relations, are about to get swept under the rug... and no-one ever will feel the need to explain why birds, which look to gross anatomists so much like dinosaurs, have DNA much more similar to frogs.

Publishing entire genomes on the internet and providing the tools to make comparisons seems a funny way to sweep things under the rug.

By the way, I think you will find birds more closely related to reptiles than to frogs.

35 posted on 02/24/2009 7:23:30 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The sun, moon and stars AREN’T round, but don’t even get me into the unevenness of space.


36 posted on 02/24/2009 7:23:33 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dangus
yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.p>I would appreciate a link to your source for this information.
37 posted on 02/24/2009 7:24:41 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dangus
yes, the DNA of birds, measured in at least some ways, is more similar to frogs than to Dinosaurs.

I would appreciate a link to your source for this information.

(reposted to correct typo)

38 posted on 02/24/2009 7:26:44 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
(and more recently ID Scientists)

For the most part, ID Scientists agree with common descent and evolution of man from simple life forms that arose in a chemical pool.

39 posted on 02/24/2009 7:27:03 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138; dangus

I think he is mixing up his movies with his creationist websites.


40 posted on 02/24/2009 7:29:14 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-202 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