Interactive Tree Of Life is an online tool for the display, annotation and management of phylogenetic trees.
Explore your trees directly in the browser, and annotate them with various types of data. More.
This is absolutely not a tree. Not the remotest resemblance to a tree. Just sayin’ is all.
How about a rotunda of life with many alcoves?
See also: Tree of life problematic
The tree of life is mostly a complete mystery (so then how do we know it’s a tree?)
Kirk Durston on the new tree of life
Tree of life morphs into … leaf?
Maybe the Tree of Life is more of an art exhibit than a science pursuit?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Part of me thinks these “not a tree” threads are just intended to get a rise out of us evos. If so, well done. 🙂
Do any other ID advocates here agree that the linked Interactive “Tree” of Life is not a tree?
Less like a tree and more like a slide rule
a few notes:
Of related note to the the biased way in which Darwinists handle the genetic evidence in order to try to find patterns that match up with their preconceived biases, is the biased way in which Darwinists handle the fossil evidence in order to find patterns that match their preconceived biases (i.e. confirmation bias):
The overall fossil record, despite such questionable attempts by Darwinists to fit pieces of it into their narrative, simply does not fit the Darwinian storyline:
Darwin’s tree of life drawing from 1859 is completely debunked. It, like his general theory, is an absurdity based on speculation and faith.
But what would you expect a tree to look like?
The real problem with this tree is that of all reconstruction. They don’t show what really is ‘known’ and what is guessed and by what evidence. Even more, this is a case where many contrary evidence is hidden.
PS: What would we know about elephant trunks if elephants were only known by fossil bones?
The best ‘tree’ I’ve seen on the net is at http://www.onezoom.org.
You won’t like it, it’s easy to use, shows branches clearly, and pretty much explains life’s various relationships.
I spend hours there.
@rvb8:
That tree may be visually more appealing, but has in essence the same problems, as I mentioned above. It only gives the impression of clear knowledge and hides much uncertainty and many contradicting evidence.