Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

[Dementia_Madness]

http://www.newscientist.com:80/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection.

Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth. At its base is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things, and out of LUCA grows a trunk, which splits again and again to create a vast, bifurcating tree. Each branch represents a single species; branching points are where one species becomes two. Most branches eventually come to a dead end as species go extinct, but some reach right to the top - these are living species. The tree is thus a record of how every species that ever lived is related to all others right back to the origin of life.

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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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

So what happened? In a nutshell, DNA. The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology. Here, at last, was the very stuff of inheritance into which was surely written the history of life, if only we knew how to decode it. Thus was born the field of molecular evolution, and as techniques became available to read DNA sequences and those of other biomolecules such as RNA and proteins, its pioneers came to believe that it would provide proof positive of Darwin's tree of life. The basic idea was simple: the more closely related two species are (or the more recently their branches on the tree split), the more alike their DNA, RNA and protein sequences ought to be.

It started well. The first molecules to be sequenced were RNAs found in ribosomes, the cell's protein-making machines. In the 1970s, by comparing RNA sequences from various plants, animals and microorganisms, molecular biologists began to sketch the outlines of a tree. This led to, among other successes, the unexpected discovery of a previously unknown major branch of the tree of life, the unicellular archaea, which were previously thought to be bacteria.

By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the opposite happened.

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.

Which was correct? Paradoxically, both - but only if the main premise underpinning Darwin's tree was incorrect. Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being closely related in some respects but not others.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

[roustabout]

This aint gonna get any play on this board.

What is funny is as the foundation of Darwinism errodes, you would think it would be a logical procession to erase some of the so called science and drop back and punt. If the foundation is faulty then why promote the house as solid? But that is not what you see. Evolutionist are so religious that they will continue to cling to their faith, in spite of the gaping holes, and just assume that there is another junk science theory on the horizon that will prop up their religion.

[Dementia_Madness]

It seems that evolution and global warming run along the same lines, "science" is replaced by science fiction, and true science is ignored. If it doesnt fit the agenda, you will hear very little og it played out in the MSM and school books for the next twenty years will perpetuate the myths to ensure that the unwashed masses continue to belive the hype.

[plumbervol]

Their is some faulty theory surrounding all of evolution, but hell their is a gaping hole in all of creationism. I do not buy all of the "stuff" surrounding Darwinism, but some of it has to be considered rock solid. Enough for even the most hard headed person to concede that Man evolved if not in the picture perfect pattern desribed by 1970's science books but at least in some sort of pattern that shows we have relatives with our closestbrother species!!

[roustabout]

Please provide the best testable and observable evidence that is rock solid.

[plumbervol]

What is the difference between the Genome of a chimpanzee and a human. What is the ratio of difference between a Rat and Mouse in comparison to the differences between a Chimp and a Human? What is the difference between the Genome of a Human and a Chimp in comparison to the difference between two unrelated people?(different Mitochondria)

[roustabout]

That's it?

What's the difference between a painting my 8 year old makes and one Picasso painted?

Science has oft looked at the Chimp/ Human issue. Sadly most who look at it are LOOKING for a connection, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. The evidence is not faulty per se. Evidence does not have an opinion. 

For example, humans share 60% of their DNA with mice. But to try and make a connection is ludicrous. Except the connection that they have the same creator. The truth is not in the similarities, but in the difference.

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. That buys a lot of plungers. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?

Even the smaller figure of 1.5 percent is quite large across the three billion or so nucleotides that make up the human genome.

From National Geographic

I wonder if PV would accept an organ transplant or blood transfussion from a Chimp since they are 98.5% human.

If the earth is 1 billion, 4.5 billion, or more, it doesn't provide enough time for the impossible.

Biochemist Christian Schwabe was forced to admit:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message (1986, p. 280, emp. added).

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical.
Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”?


Other fun facts about DNA:
- A parent and child share 99.5% of the same DNA.
- We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
- Every human on earth shares 99% of their DNA with every other human.
- Identical twins share the exact same DNA - meaning their DNA is 100% identical.
- We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.
- Researchers at Cambridge University are convinced that the mud worms not only share DNA with humans but that they are also our closest invertabrae relatives.

So why do we share DNA? Could it be a common designer? It is said that the DNA that helps mice move their ears is the same as what helps humans with facial expressions. Could the designer of a hinge use that same hinge in two completely different products? Sure can.

No wonder you so easily dismiss the scriptures PV. If you think you are a something the earth belched up onto dry land a few billions of years ago, then why should you take the Word of God as truth.

The Godless world beleives in Darwinism. They are always going to read into the evidence their own desires of a godless creation. The evidence shows not a common ancestor but a common designer.

Think of it this way.
According to Penn State University, a human DNA sequence, if it were a half an inch of a twine, would stretch from New York to the the west coast of California. So trying to use that 1.4% to 5% (science can't agree) to define relationship, is like trying to say that two people, one in Knoxville and one in Nashville, are in fact next door neighbors. 

[roustabout]

Guess PV is too busy researching Jennifer Anniston to comment any further.

[Dementia_Madness]

but hell their is a gaping hole in all of creationism.

How big does a hole have to be before God cannot fill it up? The question is, do you believe God created everything? If you do, whether you want to admit it or not you are a "creationist." I believe that God created everything, not only that but I believe he crated it with specific intent and reason. I think if God said to the stars be gone, they would disappear, I also believe that if God created everything, he had total free will in doing so, and laws of science and nature are subject to his will and not Vice-versa.

I do not think "science" can explain everything, we can only observe and speculate. True testable science shows us the falsity in the science fiction that passes in many schoolbooks for science today.

I find it amazing that people cling to the myth of fact in Darwinism, when almost every aspect of everything he proposed has been proven false by modern science. The very foundation of evolution has been washed away and yet the tower still stands, even if it is only on desire and wishful thinking. Which by the way is exactly the same basis of faith those who say they believe in God but not the bible have.

I say this, if the bible is not true, if it is human engineered then the God of the bible is also human engineered. On the same token, if Darwin's beliefs are all mostly untrue as well, everything built upon those beliefs is subject to and most likely wrong.

We cannot have it both ways, Darwinism directly assaults the validity of the Bible, and the Bible directly assaults the principles of evolution, either one is right and the other is wrong, or it is also possible both are wrong, but we cannot say that BOTH are true, and be intellectually honest with ourselves, In fact if we call ourselves Christian and deny the very source of everything that Christian faith is built upon, we are no more Christian than Mohammed.

Today the easiest way for EVIL to become a part of your life, the most effective way to destroy your faith and change your understanding of who Christ truly is, is to make you doubt God's word. In fact we will discover that this is the most effective power Satan has, and in truth it might just be his only power...to make men doubt, and to bring God and his word under accusation.

[roustabout]

Romans 12:2 says, "do no be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world...."

We see a conforming, especially within the RCC when it comes to the issue of evolution. This is nothing more than a bending to the ways of the world, so that the church can be more acceptable to the general public. I mean what is the battle cry: "99% of people believe in evolution, but these Christians keep on and on."  Well the science people can't even get the stats right. 99% do not believe in evolution as preached through Darwinism. And what if they did? The percentage of people that accept something as true does not establish truth. Every scientist in the world could believe we were put here by aliens, as some do, but it would not make it true. it could be taught in text books, it doesn't make it true.

Anyone with eyes can see that there has been a movement for a while to eradicate religious thinking, specifically Christian, out of the public realm.

Scientists are the "holy" men of the day. Their lab coats are the new sacred robes. Apparently they are beyond bias, opinion, and only operate for the objective truth of science. They never impress prejudice or opinion onto the evidence. Pardon my sarcasm, but I am sick of people hiding behind the veil of science to shape cultural belief. Ironically it is a matter of faith. PV accepts by faith because of shared DNA, that the chimp and man, are just cousins, that they sprouted out of the same root. He has placed His trust in this, and dismissed the Word of God. He has made that clear.

[roustabout]

I wish you could see the junk they sent home with my 2nd grader pawning off this evolution crap. It's pathetic.