Home » News, Tree of life » Darwinists used to think the tree of life had to make sense, but they take a pill for that now

Darwinists used to think the tree of life had to make sense, but they take a pill for that now

In “Theory Creep—The Quiet Shift in Evolutionary Thought” (Biologic Institute, June 25, 2012), Doug Axe observes,

It’s amazing how thinking on evolution has shifted since I started following the subject in the 1980s. Today’s biologists clearly have realized that evolutionary theory must be revised to avoid conflict with genomic data, and yet they are very reluctant to say that the problems forcing the change are deep problems. A consequence of this business-as-usual approach is that young biologists may be unaware that they are inheriting a version of Darwinism that would have been considered quite peculiar only a generation ago.

Although the belief that all species are related was then as sacrosanct as it is now, there was at least a general recognition then that trees are only as believable as the evidence supporting them. In particular, most biologists recognized the importance of consistency among inferred species trees, meaning that the analysis performed on corresponding genes or proteins taken from several species ought to yield the same tree regardless of which genes or proteins were used.

Indeed, it becomes so easy to construct utterly fictitious evolutionary histories when we drop the expectation of consistency that such a move ought to be viewed as undermining the whole exercise of phylogenetic reconstruction. Whisky, kerosene and milk have no common pedigree, but that wouldn’t stop us from concocting one if we were to lower the standard in that way. The only prospect of elevating tree-building to something more than a game, then, is that it might uncover a strikingly consistent pattern of relationship between species. And the sobering truth is—it doesn’t.

See also: Re the horse series in current Korean past-sell-by date textbooks

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Darwinists used to think the tree of life had to make sense, but they take a pill for that now

  1. 1

    Yes, but if they admitted the problems with their myth, what would they do on “darwin day”???

    This is what their website says (no joke)

    “Recognizing Charles Darwin on his birthday, Feb. 12, is important to promote scientific inquiry.”

    http://darwinday.org/category/action-alerts/

    R.I.P Science

  2. I was dialoging with an atheist the other day on a YouTube site about evolution. He made some bold claims and then ridiculed me for not believing in science. He said evolution is a fact. He told me that Darwin’s tree of life had been mapped out. Then he added that evolution has been demonstrated.

    I asked him what world he was living in and proceeded to show him evidence like is presented here. Good post. He just cursed at me again and ridiculed me for not knowing what I was talking about. It is amazing how many people still think Darwin’s tree of life is a fact.

    Just goes to show how difficult it is to figure out our past when we reject the Creator’s word.

  3. I’m not sure where some people are getting the idea that evolution is dying or that the tree of life is falling down. I don’t see that sort of thinking among evolutionists. There are articles that IDers put out claiming that the theory is in trouble but evolutionists keep saying that the evidence for Neo-Darwinism is growing more and more. If the theory is not true, why do the majority of scientists still support it? I can’t believe it’s due to some conspiracy of trying to keep a worldview alive or to take religion out of the classrooms. I’m all for ID and in fact I hope it’s true but perhaps ID needs to develop a competing hypothesis rather than telling us the old one keeps dying.

  4. I typically complain to myself about over-sensationalized headlines here and on Dr. Hunter’s blog, but this one was pretty funny.

  5. JLAfan:

    I’m not sure where some people are getting the idea that evolution is dying or that the tree of life is falling down.

    See Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists:

    Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”

Leave a Reply