: English A Primer on the Tree of Life - Conclusion

11-27-2012, 12:09 PM

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesnt. And when it doesnt, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the aforementioned New Scientist article admits, Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth, but because different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories, the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past as the article stated 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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded, and as scientists quoted in the article said, We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality or the tree is being annihilated. Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling different evolutionary stories is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

11-27-2012, 01:10 PM
... ... ... ... ... ... !