This topic extends from an earlier discussion held under the thread ‘Virus Disproves Design’. My argument is that the tree of life as projected by evolution has serious problems.
The tree based on homology is incongruent to the tree based on DNA analysis. Now, there is a serious debate going on between evolutionists regarding which of the two trees is the real tree.
More than anything else, this reveals the subjective nature of the tree construction, which is nothing but an elliptical interpretation of facts. Often times, people cling to the tree as if it’s an observed fact, but the way the stories are being retold proves just that… it’s a story.
The DNA based tree further complicates the story, because what kind of a tree you map out depends on which genes you choose. In some cases, 50% of the genes point in one way while the other half points the other way.
If you want to find a brush version of life, you will find that too. Just choose your genes wisely. In this backdrop, what credibility does the leading proof of evolution, the phylogenetic tree, carry any more?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.