Darwin's Tree of Life...Dying!

It seems the theory of "Common Descent" is in serious trouble. The journal New Scientist has released an article titled "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life." The article candidly discusses the tremendous obstacle faced by evolutionary biologists who try to use DNA to construct trees showing hypothetical evolutionary relationships. According to the article, "the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."

"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 Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.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.

I suppose it's no wonder that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) steadfastly opposes any critical analysis of the evidence for evolution. The deeper the research goes, the more difficult it becomes to prop up the theory of common descent; and evolution doesn't work without common descent. In addition, the molecular trees (based on DNA) and the morphological trees (based on anatomical traits) do not resemble each other as they should. The alternative explanation, and the one that seems increasingly to fit the DNA evidence, is common design. But, Mother Nature forbid it! We cannot let this tidbit leak out to the school children!

And so, when this debate comes into public view, scientists "put on a united front and hold to the bluff that there are no weaknesses in their position." (Salvo Magazine, Summer 2009).

Recently the Texas Board of Education adopted science standards that require students to "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims, including "common ancestry." The National Academy of Sciences would be horrified at the prospect, but still, imagine... an new generation of students who are permitted to analyze evidence once again. There is still hope for science education in the good old USA! Way to go Texas...

(Full Story in Salvo Magazine, Summer 2009 Issue)