Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steve Meyer on Darwin’s Tree of Life

arroba Email

Everyone has seen the iconic tree of life depicted by Darwin. But in this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, best-selling author Stephen Meyer describes how the fossil record poses significant challenges to Darwin’s tree of life. When one studies the various biological forms of the fossil record, one finds that these forms remain static with slight variations until the species either goes extinct or persists into the present day. According to Meyer, “we don’t see the kind of morphing from one major morphological innovation into another that you would expect on the basis of Darwinian theory.”

The Tree of Life is how artsies came to embrace Darwinism. True, false, or indifferent, it practically illustrates itself. Good myths work that way. A problem arises when we are commanded by authorities to believe them.

To this day there aren't any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing any tree of life. ET
chuck, (dont forget to answer my previous post) and here is one more note in regards to your common descent concerns, and what was said in that video: first, Venter explained (to Paul Davies), that there are rare organisms with different genetic code ... i assume, that Dawkins heard that too, was at the same table ... (DID YOU HEAR THAT ? ) But, in the end of the video, Dawkins is saying that "... all species we ever looked at have the same genetic code - means they are all are related ..." This is hard to comprehend, Venter just explained Dawkins, that there are few species WITH A DIFFERENT GENETIC CODE (e.g. mycoplasma) but Dawkins totally ignored it and repeated his mantra about the same genetic code, that everything is related = common descent ... Venter never responded, just laughed at Dawkins ... Do you see why is this video labeled "Craig Venter denies Darwin's tree of life (universal common descent)" ???? martin_r
Chuck, basically, you repeated what you posted before, but you haven't answered my question - WHY WAS DAWKINS INTRIGUED ? martin_r
I don't see a "real" disagreement. What I see is Vetner being more precise about how our current data regarding the phylogenetic relationship of organisms interrelates. And I see Dawkins playing the role of provocateur which he so relishes. Given the huge progress research in molecular biology and genetics have made, the "tree of life" now looks more like a bush because it incorporates data beyond simple morphology which was the basis of Darwin's original model. e.g., horizonal gene transfer, genome sequencing, etc. The main point that I previously addressed is common descent. There is no disagreement on that evolutionary fact, despite what "philosopher of science" Stephen Meyer says. Even ID "rock star" Michael Behe accepts common descent and clearly so testified in the Kitzmiller trial. chuckdarwin
Venter merely says that it is more complicated today and more akin to a bush rather than a tree.
Chuck, what we see is how two Darwinian scientists(friends!) disagree on the basics of the theory of evolution - e.g. tree of life. Chuck, have you noticed what Dawkins said at 2:20 ? Just to remind you, he said exactly this:
.. i am intrigued at Craig (Venter) saying that tree of life is a fiction
Chuck, my question, why is Dawkins intrigued ? From your post above (i quoted), you don't seem to be intrigued ... So why is Dawkins intrigued ? Is he more stupid than you ? I just don't get it ... Why Dawkins disagreed with Venter (in front of the audience), Dawkins could have said "it is more complicated today and more akin to a bush rather than a tree." Instead of it, Dawkins disagreed ... Can you explain ??????? martin_r
The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. —Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
This video has been shown over and over by anti-evolutionists for years as some type of smoking gun leading to the demise of common descent. However, Venter doesn't deny common descent, which is really, along with natural selection, the point of the Origin (as Meyer acknowledges). Venter merely says that it is more complicated today and more akin to a bush rather than a tree. A bush also has a common stem, it is just harder to trace. As Darwin himself stated about the tree of life, it is a simile to convey in simple terms the concept of common descent. A "simile" is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. What is incredible about Darwin is that he created this model without the benefit of molecular biology or genetics. Venter's discussion of genome sequencing refers to our having identified app. 60,000,000 sequences. To put this into perspective, there are an estimated 2.4 billion genome sequences just for dogs (Canis familiaris) alone. chuckdarwin
Have a look at what a very famous Darwinist Craig Venter once said about the tree of life ( in front of his good friend Richard Dawkins ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c43ckMLN50Q PS: notice the moment when he is saying, that they have sequenced 60,000,000 unique gene sets ... martin_r
Darwin's tree of life is a joke - viruses, the most abundant biological entity on Earth can't be included in tree of life, because a virus is a completely different system - a virus is not made of cells. This also falsify the theory of universal common ancestor ... From Virology.ws (mainstream virology website, run by a Darwinian virology professor):
Viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic – they have many evolutionary origins. There are no ancestral viral lineages No single gene has been identified that is shared by all viruses. There are common protein motifs in viral capsids, but these have likely come about through convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer. Viruses don’t have a structure derived from a common ancestor Cells obtain membranes from other cells during cell division. According to this concept of ‘membrane heredity’, today’s cells have inherited membranes from the first cells that evolved, and provides evidence that cells are derived from a common ancestor. Viruses have no such inherited structure. https://www.virology.ws/2009/03/19/viruses-and-the-tree-of-life/
Also, this is interesting: Many evolutionary origins ???? What does that mean ???? So thousand of KNOWN viruses emerged repeatedly by some unknown evolutionary processes ??? And of course, these things always happen in deep past, we can't see those many evolutionary origins today .... martin_r
The tree is a powerful false metaphor because it resembles the trees of genealogy. When Uncle Oscar married that cheap slut Ruby, his branch went wrong, and we won't invite them to Thanksgiving dinners now. Darwin falsely transfers this cultural distaste into a new species that physically can't intermarry with Uncle Sid's branch. We don't get new species by intermarriage or selection. polistra

Leave a Reply