Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
July 11, 2014 at 11:25 am (This post was last modified: July 11, 2014 at 11:25 am by FatAndFaithless.)
(July 11, 2014 at 11:07 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:
(July 11, 2014 at 11:03 am)SteveII Wrote: Okay, let's look at a topic which seems pretty serious. (from the article mentioned above). Tell me if this is mis-characterization of the issue and please provide an article link that explains how this is not a problem.
The "Tree of Life" is falling
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:23 "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." "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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.13 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."
"Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either." "A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer."31 "HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows." "Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis... compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed."
"The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories." " 'We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology [design or shape] entirely,' says Syvanen." "It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works." "Rose goes even further. 'The tree of life is politely buried, we all know that,' he says. 'What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.' Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says." " 'The tree of life was useful,' says Bapteste. 'It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on.' "23
Evolutionists write: "The meaning, role in biology, and support in evidence of the universal 'Tree of Life' (TOL) are currently in dispute. Some evolutionists believe... that we can with available data and methods reconstruct this tree quite accurately, and that we have in fact done so, at least for the major groups of organisms. Other evolutionists... do not doubt that some... branching tree can in principle represent the history of all life. Still other evolutionists, ourselves included, question even this most fundamental belief, that there is a single true tree." "Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences was a fact of nature." Yet "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true." There is "the possibility that hierarchy is imposed by us rather than already being there in the data."12 "The finding that, on average, only 0.1% to 1% of each genome fits the metaphor of a tree of life overwhelmingly supports the... argument that a single bifurcating tree is an insufficient model to describe the microbial evolutionary process." "When chemists or physicists find that a given null hypothesis can account for only 1% of their data, they immediately start searching for a better hypothesis. Not so with microbial evolution, it seems, which is rather worrying. Could it be that many biologists have their heart set on finding a tree of life, regardless of what the data actually say?"10 "A single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist, although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees." "Tree topology tends to differ for different genes."23 The genomes of all life forms are collections of genes with diverse evolutionary histories." "The TOL concept must be substantially revised or abandoned because a single tree topology or even congruent topologies of trees for several highly conserved genes cannot possibly represent the history of all or even the majority of the genes." "The 'strong' TOL hypothesis, namely, the existence of a 'species tree' for the entire history of cellular life, is falsified by the results of comparative genomics." "So the TOL becomes a network, or perhaps most appropriately, the Forest of Life that consists of trees, bushes, thickets..., and of course, numerous dead trunks and branches."21
Kevin Peterson, a molecular paleobiologist at Dartmouth College, "has been reshaping phylogenetic trees for the past few years, ever since he pioneered a technique that uses short molecules called microRNAs to work out evolutionary branchings. He has now sketched out a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents."
" 'I've looked at thousands of microRNAs, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,' he says. The technique "just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution'."
"And as he continues to look, he keeps uncovering problems, from the base of the animal tree all the way up to its crown."
"Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. 'What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,' says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth". --Dolgin, Elie. 28 June 2012. Rewriting Evolution. Nature, Vol.486, pp.460-462.
This is huge. Professional evolutionists spend most of their time adjusting their "tree of life". They have fun thinking how one type of creature "developed" into another type, how abilities "arose" or "emerged" here and there, but that is just playing at science. These articles show that, while they still cling to their belief in evolution, the truth is becoming inescapable to a few evolutionists who dare to look at the facts: Darwin was wrong; microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent. There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.
Are you fucking serious? This is a whole page of bullshit mischaracterizaion of evolution. Evolution is not a tree or a ladder or an ordered sequence with an end in mind. It's much more like a bush or a web, with huge imperfections, dead ends, extinctions, and useless junk vestigal DNA. Evolution is not linear, it's not goal-oriented, it's imperfect, inefficient at times, unpredictable, and it's not a damn tree.
Also, glad to see you stopped addressing my previous posts.
Oh hey, I also did some research, and the same scientist (Doolitle) that your article uses to try and 'disprove' evolution, has his own article in Scientific American that asserts the same thing, that evolution is not a 'tree'....but guess what? He then provides a revised model that is much closer to a web or bush, and never once even suggests any weakness in evolution, just the old way of visualizing it.
Here's his suggested new model of bacterial DNA transfer and evolution from a single cell.
Again, it NEVER suggests any sort of weakness or falisty with regards to evolution, and the bullshit sensationalist language in the article you linked, if at all valid, is directed at the former metaphor we used to describe evolution (which was Darwin's idea, you would expect the science to change in its representation over more than a fucking century).
I'm getting tired of you linking shit and then crossing your arms and saying "Ha, disprove that!". It's not our job to deal with every lazy ill-researched claim you make. Do a little damn reading.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
So Steve, at this point I have to ask: are you just looking for things that'll disprove evolution, or are you looking to study the facts irrespective of where they lead?
Because it certainly seems like you're just dashing for the former because it's what you already believe. It's getting embarrassing.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(July 11, 2014 at 11:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: So Steve, at this point I have to ask: are you just looking for things that'll disprove evolution, or are you looking to study the facts irrespective of where they lead?
Because it certainly seems like you're just dashing for the former because it's what you already believe. It's getting embarrassing.
Especially when he doesn't respond to posts that directly address and bullshitify his claims.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
(July 11, 2014 at 12:15 am)Purplundy Wrote: I feel this fits the topic of this thread.
Has anyone noticed that the Bible doesn't claim infallibility, like, at all?
That makes sense. The Bible doesn't talk about itself because not a single writer expected to have his text copied down next to the words of some other guy in a different place at a different time, bound in leather, and shaken vigorously at gay people.
Unless the Holy Spirit magically possessed each author like in some sort of horror movie, the Bible is incapable of giving a coherent opinion on quite a few things.
I just think it's weird that both Christians and atheists begin arguing from the assumption that Christianity is, or should be, dictated by the words in the Bible.
The Law (the first 5 books of the OT) and the Prophets (the second half of the OT) were stated to be inspired by writers in the NT. NT books contain historical accounts (Gospels, Acts), theological letters (from Paul, Timothy, Peter John, etc.) and the eschatology book of Revelation at the end. By the early 200s the current 27 books were treated as a group.
The writers of the NT did not claim their writings were inspired. They were given their status by others based on author having seen the risen Christ, theologically consistency, etc.
Most Christians believe that the various books of the Bible were inspired as well as inerrant in their original form.
Christian does mean follower of Christ. Christ is pretty much the centerpiece of the Bible. It follows that Christians pretty much have to follow the Bible to claim the title.
You are right. The Bible does not give an opinion on many things. It is however useful for instruction in a number of areas including history, religious, ethics, nature of God, nature of man, plan of salvation, how should we live, and where we are going.
Before the very clever comments come flooding in, I would like to make an observation. For all the massive amount of time you people take to bash Christianity, most you know so little of what it actually means or teaches (there are probably some exceptions). Your concepts of Christianity do not come from its source (or even people that will explain it properly), but through anti-religious forums, books or articles. You accuse me of only looking at articles that have a Christian biased toward evolution. It seems most of you have done the same when it comes to Christianity.
Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?
(July 11, 2014 at 11:16 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You know, Steve - rather than plagiarizing an entire article, it's customary to provide excepts and a link, and attribute the source.
Plagiarism is a no-no around here.
It was a small part of a huge article. I have posted the link several times, but if you want to increase its search rankings, here it is again:
July 11, 2014 at 12:22 pm (This post was last modified: July 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(July 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(July 11, 2014 at 12:15 am)Purplundy Wrote: I feel this fits the topic of this thread.
Has anyone noticed that the Bible doesn't claim infallibility, like, at all?
That makes sense. The Bible doesn't talk about itself because not a single writer expected to have his text copied down next to the words of some other guy in a different place at a different time, bound in leather, and shaken vigorously at gay people.
Unless the Holy Spirit magically possessed each author like in some sort of horror movie, the Bible is incapable of giving a coherent opinion on quite a few things.
I just think it's weird that both Christians and atheists begin arguing from the assumption that Christianity is, or should be, dictated by the words in the Bible.
The Law (the first 5 books of the OT) and the Prophets (the second half of the OT) were stated to be inspired by writers in the NT. NT books contain historical accounts (Gospels, Acts), theological letters (from Paul, Timothy, Peter John, etc.) and the eschatology book of Revelation at the end. By the early 200s the current 27 books were treated as a group.
The writers of the NT did not claim their writings were inspired. They were given their status by others based on author having seen the risen Christ, theologically consistency, etc.
Most Christians believe that the various books of the Bible were inspired as well as inerrant in their original form.
Christian does mean follower of Christ. Christ is pretty much the centerpiece of the Bible. It follows that Christians pretty much have to follow the Bible to claim the title.
You are right. The Bible does not give an opinion on many things. It is however useful for instruction in a number of areas including history, religious, ethics, nature of God, nature of man, plan of salvation, how should we live, and where we are going.
Before the very clever comments come flooding in, I would like to make an observation. For all the massive amount of time you people take to bash Christianity, most you know so little of what it actually means or teaches (there are probably some exceptions). Your concepts of Christianity do not come from its source (or even people that will explain it properly), but through anti-religious forums, books or articles. You accuse me of only looking at articles that have a Christian biased toward evolution. It seems most of you have done the same when it comes to Christianity.
Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?
"You guys just don't understand Christianity". Actually atheists consistently score the highest on any sort of religious awareness and knowledge study given, and you do realize that many, if not most, of atheists used to be Christians, right? If you think that we're unfairly biased against what your bibble says, fine, you can think that, but you know how you would convince us that it is in fact useful and true? Provide some evidence. That's the bottom line, and its something that you haven't even come close to approaching.
And yes, to respond to your cheap point, I've read the entire Bible cover to cover several times, without a pastor or priest over my shoulder telling me how I am supposed to interpret every passage.
(July 11, 2014 at 12:20 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(July 11, 2014 at 11:16 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You know, Steve - rather than plagiarizing an entire article, it's customary to provide excepts and a link, and attribute the source.
Plagiarism is a no-no around here.
It was a small part of a huge article. I have posted the link several times, but if you want to increase its search rankings, here it is again:
(July 11, 2014 at 11:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: So Steve, at this point I have to ask: are you just looking for things that'll disprove evolution, or are you looking to study the facts irrespective of where they lead?
Because it certainly seems like you're just dashing for the former because it's what you already believe. It's getting embarrassing.
I have been told my whole life that evolution is not true and is filled with holes. I have read books that poke at these holes. I can find hundreds if not thousands of articles that poke at these holes. I read that scientist know there are holes and either ignore them because their belief is so strong that they figure we will eventually figure it out or they are not going to question the establishment because they will look bad at one end of the spectrum or even damage their careers on the other end. I hear that intelligent design is gaining momentum.
The bias of naturalism is a huge concern of mine. For example, no matter what science discovers, you will never ever believe in a theory that has God as part of the equation. They have no alternative than to believe in evolution. How many scientist would fit that description?
On the other side, you have thousands of Christian scientist (in every applicable field) that say evolution does not fit the facts.
So who am I to believe? Those that say that God had a hand in things or those who won't consider that option?
(July 11, 2014 at 12:50 pm)SteveII Wrote: So who am I to believe? Those that say that God had a hand in things or those who won't consider that option?
The latter, especially since faith is not valid evidence for stated deity's existence.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
![[Image: 9jhS4Vb.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2F9jhS4Vb.png)
