Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Creationists have been saying this for decades!)

New Scientist ^ | January 21, 2009 | Graham Lawton

[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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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...

[Rebel_Ace]

You remind me of a poster from quite a while back. His moniker was "Willie Green". I do not know what became of him.

The reason you remind me of "Willie Green" is that nearly every day, for about two years straight, Willie would post an article or opinion piece relating to his pet cause in life. In his case, it was "High Speed Magnetically Levitated Trains". (He should be happy, the Porkulus bill apparently has billions for one)

Every day, he would post. He would cite the same studies. He would point to the same sources. He would have PRECISELY THE SAME arguments with THE SAME PEOPLE over and over again. He would convince NO ONE. NO ONE would convince him. He would have his cheering section shouting "AMEN!". He would have the same detractors shouting "IDIOT!" Each and every thread was a near carbon copy of all the others.

Now, as I read the purpose of Free Republic in its mission statement, it is for the disemmination of political information and events, with discussions to aid in the promotion of of the conservative principles laid down in our Founding Documents.

I come here to keep abreast of current political events, read analysis and opinion about the actions of our as well as other governments, and learn what might be happening that could affect the liberties and freedoms I cherish about the good ol' U.S. of A. I am sure that a fairly high percentage of Free Republic members and lurkers do the same.

When I am interested in some other topic, say "Comic Books" for example, I might visit another site, such as SuperHeroHype, where they discuss COMICS and not POLITICS.

It simply occurs to me that you might find your time better spent, and your postings better received, on a site that primarily concerns itself with religious matters.

If your purpose in repeatedly posting essentially the same arguments over and over is to "convert" any heathens reading them, you might find a more receptive audience at a site for people seeking religious answers, and not political information. If your purpose is to hear your ideas cheered by others, again you will get a better response at forums exclusively devoted to religous matters.

No, I am not yelling at you, "HEY! DON'T POST HERE!" You are free to do what you want, as long as your postings do not upset the folks running Free Republic (they have the final say as to who has posting privilages here, not me). What I am asking is that in all honesty, is this the best forum for the topic you seem to hold so dear? Do you not feel even the slightest pang of pointless repetition when you post the same thing over and over?

With regards to POLITICS and GOVERNMENT, a 4 billion year old earth and a 6000 year old earth affects Obama's stimulus package how? A 4 billion year old earth leads to the inevitable conclusion that you need Gun Control? Is that how it works? A 6000 year old earth implies that Federal income taxes should be bracketed in three tiers?

Just seems a tad off topic for daily postings on a POLITICAL forum.

[ColdWater]

I think the evidence would show—if it is available—actual de-evolution in humans...in that genetically, and in almost all other respects, human beings were superior thousands of years ago, than we are now.

Since we have remains from those thousands of years ago, you should be able to show definitely that these earlier men were superior .....

[dangus]

Well, I was referring to percent matches of DNA among Crocodillia, Anura, Aves, and a Dinosaur DNA sample found in the 1980s. Anura and Aves were found to be the closest. This was when I was studying biology, but I am no longer in that field, and don’t have access. Incidentally, it was not a study which asserted Birds and Frogs were closely related, but merely charted the percentage of amino acids that various groups had in common with each other. I just happened to notice the very high correlation. This makes looking for it under a subject search very difficult. At the time, I had found other papers which questioned whether modern lissamphibians were even directly descended from stem amphibians at all, so it had grabbed my interest.

I don’t know whether the paper you cite was in part spurred by what I referred to. (Did someone say, “Hey, let’s see if they really ARE so closely related?”) I do notice that their research doesn’t seem to indicate that they measured relations to frogs, or any other amphibians at all. SO what you wrote may either be a later proof that the earlier indications were wrong, or it may be a complete non-sequitur.

In any event, if you read my original posting, my clear intent was to prompt further research into using genetics to establish phylogenies, not to champion young-earth creationism.

(My take on young-earth creationism: If the earth isn’t old, God sure wanted to make it look like it was!)

[Cedric]

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent

This from an Evo, that's precious.

[demshateGod]

Yeah, you’re right, the ones who actually read the Bible.

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwinist A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays:

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

[ColdWater]

My own notion here, for certain, but not without a philosophical and biblical basis.

At least you are honest in that you acknowledge that you do not let facts get in your way of your opinion.

[ColdWater]

Yeah, you’re right, the ones who actually read the Bible.

Are you accusing the Pope of not reading the Bible?

[Cedric]

I think the evidence would show...human beings were superior thousands of years ago, than we are now.

Your comments provide abundant evidence.

[GodGunsGuts]

In case you haven’t noticed, the battle between creationists, IDers and the Evos is quite political. When Creationists and IDers break the government sanctioned Darwinist stranglehold on the ideology of science (and, increasingly, morals) we will ride off into the sunset. Until then, it’s all hands on deck.

[ColdWater]

Why do you think you are exempt from your human devolution theory?

[Cedric]

And what was Darwin’s educational background?

[Cedric]

I am the exception to many rules which govern inferior beings, such as erstwhile, laid-off, atomic power plant radioactivity testers, who are willing to work really cheap but still can't hold a job.

I also have the authority to promote scholars, posthumously.

[ColdWater]

Part of Darwin’s education:

Christ’s College, Cambridge, for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the first step towards becoming an Anglican parson.[15] ...He became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow and met other leading naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as “the man who walks with Henslow”. When exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley’s Evidences of Christianity.[16] In his final examination in January 1831 Darwin did well, coming tenth out of a pass list of 178.[17]

[ColdWater]

I also have the authority to promote scholars, posthumously.

You mean 'to misrepresent your evidence' ...

[Cedric]

Quotations are not evidence, dufus.

[ColdWater]

No but your posts are evidence of your mispresentations.

[ColdWater]

God created man in His own image out of dust

Why did God use dust?

[conservativebabe]

The thing I find so interesting is how evolutionists say that ID advocates are not “scientists”. Yet, in the face of actual scientific discovery which is helping to crumble the theory of evolution, they ignore the science themselves in order to so desperately hang on to a theory they WANT to be true.

[allmendream]

Darwin never needed to lie about his education background. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the education background of the lawyers you cite for scientific judgments?