PM03: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

This video looks at the New Scientist article titled Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. It is an interesting article and I recommend reading it (link below), however the title of the article may be a little misleading.

Previous episodes of Pseudoscience and Mythology:

PM02: Homeopathy
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xzemr22pbrU&fmt=22
or low resolution
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xzemr22pbrU

PM01: Microwave oven dangers
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=djBAMazLy0I&fmt=18


References:

1. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about...
2. http://tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer


Further reading (suggested by 2bsirius)
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/search?q=new+scientist+darwin+was+wrong
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=69929&start=0...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Creation
• Darwin
• New
• Scientist
• Tree
• of
• Life

[Answerquestions1]

all these shows is that evolutionists will always find a way to explain the evidance away. but the fact is that nether the fossil record nor DNA show that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor. ¿is there any evidance that we share an ansestor with microbes?

[jasonlpsmith]

@Answerquestions1 Yes, there is an extrodinary amount of evidence. If you need help finding it and you are wanting to know more, please tell me and I will gladly go through it with you in detail. Information can be found by reading the wikipedia article on the topic "Evidence of common decent", particularly the section titled "Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns".

[Answerquestions1]

@jasonlpsmith

ok, what evidance shows that microbes and any multicelular organism share a common ancestor?

[jasonlpsmith]

@Answerquestions1 Paraphrased from Wikipedia article "Evidence of common descent”. All known organisms are based on the same biochemical structure. Genetic information is coded in DNA (or RNA in some viruses), the DNA is transcribed to RNA and translated into proteins by ribosomes. The genetic code translates to the same amino acids for almost every organism. Bacteria DNA inserted into a human codes for the same amino acids. For further info Google "Part 4 Molecular Sequence Evidence talkorigins

[jasonlpsmith]

You now have to use waybackmachine to get an archive of the article New Scientist released (or be a subscriber).

karamarouge seems to have missed the point of the article. Evolution is not being disputed. However the concept of the tree of life has been found to be an oversimplification for some applications, but is still a reasonable model for a simple explanation.

[TheVodkaHaze]

Actually, there's a contradiction in fossil records and Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection is every organism requires a prior ancestral form. But even Darwin admits that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata is devoid of any evidence of such creatures. How, then, did these vast and inexplicably new species suddenly appear out of nowhere?

[jasonlpsmith]

Before the Cambrian period is the Ediacaran period. There are many multi-cellular soft-bodied fossils from this era preserved in pre-Cambrian rock in Australia.

I have seen it personally for myself in strata in the Flinders Ranges, Australia. Stromatolites (colonies of cyanobacteria) from 630Ma, Dickensona from 550Ma (Ediacaran), achaeocyaths from 530Ma, molluscs from 520Ma.

Wikipedia "Ediacaran Biota" to find out more.

[greenearthnazi20204u]

i have to jump on this Darwin was wrong and creationist too . there is a 3rd more complete theory state were life can live the universe manifests it. light waves and microwave can transfer information about one living being to another  living being ,to have a baby not like its self .

[karamarouge]

"According to Loren Rieseberg, a botanist at the

University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, around 14 per

cent of living plant species are the product of the fusion of two

separate lineages."

Fusion was no where in Darwin's simple mind. And thus proposed an idea of a tree of life that is indeed WRONG!

[karamarouge]

"More fundamentally, recent research suggests that the evolution of

animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. "There are

problems even in that little corner," says Dupré. Having uprooted

the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes

to the remaining branches."

LOL..Not only is the core of the concept wrong the entire concept is being savaged by scientists not creationists or bible thumpers

[karamarouge]

It would be perverse to claim

that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because

multicellular life evolved that way. "If there is a tree of life,

it's a small anomalous structure growing out of the web of life,"

says John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at the University of

Exeter, UK.

THAT IS A GOOD AS CALLING DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE " WRONG".. that couldnt be much clearer to even the dumbest fool on earth

[karamarouge]

"Dagan dubbed Bork's

result "the tree of 1 per cent" and argued that the study

inadvertently provided some of the best evidence yet that the

tree-of-life concept was redundant"

this is reference to the tree shown in the video.

Author also deceives audience that horizontal gene transfer is the only issue...