Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do genetics and homology really support Darwinism where the fossil record has failed?


ID explainer Lukas Rueger takes that on:

Perhaps with that distressing reality in mind, Richard Dawkins and others have said that the case for Darwinian evolution is perfectly sound even without fossils. Evolutionists, instead, have all the evidence they need in genes and morphology to draw the one true tree of life. In Episode 4, which is out today, Lukas asks, “Do Homology and Phylogenetics REALLY Support Darwin’s Tree of Life?” The problem is that the “trees” thus sketched are full of fundamental, mutual contradictions. Even if universal common ancestry is true, there seemingly is no drawable “true tree.” As Lukas says, “Those who study homology simply assume evolution to be true, but they’ve never actually demonstrated that the ancestral evolutionary relationships between different organisms are real.”

David Klinghoffer, “Lukas Ruegger: Homology and Phylogenetics Topple Darwin’s Tree” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 30, 2022)

You may also wish to read: Can the Cambrian Explosion be explained away by the earlier Ediacaran Explosion? David Klinghoffer: Lukas Ruegger is the personable new intelligent design “explainer” whose videos take an approach similar to Khan Academy’s. The latter’s offering on evolution is replete with junk science, as Casey Luskin has detailed. Ruegger’s treatment of the subject is much better, and I appreciate his clarity and brevity.


Why punctuated equilibrium did not rescue modern evolutionary theory, with Lukas Ruegger. Re Stephen Jay Gould returning to traditional Darwinism: Didn’t E. O. Wilson try escaping the vice grip of Darwinism with “group selection” and then dramatically returning to full orthodoxy, leaving many dozens of supporters stranded? Complete academy acceptance is a powerful motivator…

The Emperor has no clothes.. zweston
Our finding casts serious doubts over literally thousands of studies that use phylogenetic trees of extant data to reconstruct the diversification history of taxa, especially for those taxa where fossils are rare, or that found correlations between environmental factors such as changing global temperatures and species extinction rates … the results do not invalidate the theory of evolution itself. They do, however, put constraints on what type of information can be extracted from genetic data to reconstruct evolution’s path. — Stilianos Louca, Department of Biology (University of Oregon)
I have been working with these traditional types of models for a decade now… I am one of the lead developers of a popular software package for estimating diversification rates from phylogenetic trees. And, as such, I thought I had a really good sense of how these models worked. I was wrong … — Matthew W. Pennell (Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia)
full article: https://www.futurity.org/extinctions-evolution-2340092-2/ martin_r
We are talking about people who have no problem believing that complete species in the fossil records are nothing more than transitional fossils without a single gradual change being found between the two. Those trees and species Darwinists argue over do nothing to convince them of anything. They blindly believe what they have been conditioned to believe, while accusing anyone who disagrees with Darwin of the exact same thing. They use lack of evidence as evidence. BobRyan

Leave a Reply