Darwinian evolution made simple:
- mutations change DNA content in an undirected way
- Natural Selection (NS) then “selects” from among the resulting variants
- NS only works at the level of the entire creature (phenotype vs genotype)
- NS can’t select for any single mutation
- NS can’t select for a gene
- NS can’t select for a dormant new feature (even if it could be produced by mutations)
How well does NS work? A Smithsonian biologist said,
“The ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.”
Leigh, E., The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism, abstract in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(12):495–498, 1999; p. 495.
Tree of Life coming under attack. Why? Because the data is not consistent with it.
As our genetics knowledge has grown, the genetic contradictions to the “tree of life” concept has been growing and for at least the past 20 years some scientists have been saying that the “tree” idea doesn’t work. However, Richard Dawkin’s 2011 book “The Magic of Reality” (which targets children!) makes no mention of these issues — what a surprise! You must keep reminding yourself that the popular promoters of evolution DO NOT TELL YOU THE WHOLE STORY.
How important is the “tree of life” ?: The New Scientist article recognizes how central and important this tree of life idea is to Darwinism:
“Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution … Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle … ” Lawnton, G., Uprooting Darwin’s tree, New Scientist 201(2692):34–39, 2009
—— begin from: Focus: creation news and views
Storm over New Scientist cover
With “Darwin was wrong” emblazoned on the cover of New Scientist, the inside editorial and feature article explained that DNA evidence has forced a dramatic rethink of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary “tree of life”. As early as 1993 some biologists were proposing that the “tree” was really more like a “web”. As more molecular data has become available, biologists have become increasingly polarized, with some doggedly defending the tree concept, while others argue that the notion is obsolete and needs to be discarded.
“We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pièrre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France.
Yet Darwin had argued that the tree of life was a fact of nature. Biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, says that the tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, going so far as to say that without it evolutionary theory would never have happened. As Bapteste says, “If you don’t have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?”
However, both Doolittle and Bapteste stress that their downgrading of the evolutionary tree of life doesn’t mean that they are abandoning the theory of evolution.
Meanwhile, the New Scientist cover itself has generated a storm. One leading anti-creationist blogger writes that he is “still angry” that in the midst of his and other skeptics’ efforts, “New Scientist hands the creationists a propaganda goldmine”. [Notice that when the data contradicts evolution, simply telling the truth about it is considered “propaganda. Whatever happened to free inquiry?] Such is his anger that he says, “Don’t buy New Scientist. Don’t support those that provide support for creationists.”
But New Scientist is strongly misotheistic—see our detailed rebuttal creation.com/24myths.
- New Scientist 201(2692):5, 34–39, 24 January 2009.
- Ediacaran, ediacaran.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-scientist-creationist-shills.html, 25 January 2009.
—— end from: Focus: creation news and views ——
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed and form hybrids more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life.”
The findings mean that to link species by Darwin’s evolutionary branches is an oversimplification.
“The tree of life is being politely buried,” said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
Here’s the old, simple, but completely inaccurate:
So here’s a modern evolutionary tree of life:
- Notice that there is no longer a single root! Abiogenesis must have occurred multiple times!
- All those horizontal connections represent apparently similar genetic content but *not* any ancestral relationships.
- Starting at a tip and trying to work backwards is ambiguous and undefined.
- Analysis of ancestral relationships is ill defined.
- The structure of the web depends upon what genes are examined. Analysis of different genes result in different webs. Since if common descent is true, there must be exactly one correct tree showing ancestral relationships, this means that the genetic data does not show ancestry at all! Genetic data taken as a whole provides no support for common descent.
Here it is in a simpler view:
Here’s the creationist orchard:
Now compare these last two considering that the horizontal connections in the evolutionist web represent common genetic info, but not any ancestral relationship. Furthmore, the Biblical view is that all kinds reproduce after their kind, and that they were all designed the same Designer. So it is not surprising that the Designer used common design elements across various kinds. So if we were to add horizontal lines between kinds to connect similar genetic info (reused design elements) it would look just like the evolutionist web. Thus it is quite apparent that the actual data is fully compatible with the Biblical Creationist Orchard.