Evolution 101-part 3: The Guessing Tree

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (And yes, it really says that on their web site) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.

The family tree

The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. .

It’s cute how they use the word “process” to mean “religion” and “produces” to mean “inspires us to creatively invent.” But if they spent a lot of time being THAT accurate, they wouldn’t have much of a story anymore.  Maybe I’m being too picky.

As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships.

By studying inherited species’ characteristics and other historical evidence, we can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and represent them on a “family tree,” called a phylogeny.

Let me read between the lines a little: Reconstruct means “Invent.” This is another way of saying, “We don’t OBSERVE this happening (thus making it NOT science) but we can use our imaginations and lead ourselves to BELIEVE that it DID happen, and maybe, just maybe, it’s sort of happening still.” Does this remind anyone else of Scientology?

The phylogeny you see below represents the basic relationships that tie all life on Earth together.
circle tree
The three domains
This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms.

Hypothesis: a GUESS. In this case, a guess based on the presumption that evolution happened in the distant unobservable past. Remember that as we go along. I’m not saying I believe this phylogenic tree is mere invention- they are admitting to it here. This is not a record of observation, but a fabrication which they BELIEVE tells a true story- maybe.

It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. We can zoom in on particular branches of the tree to explore the phylogeny of particular lineages, such as Animalia (outlined in red). And then we can zoom in even further to examine some of the major lineages within Vertebrata.

This is really no different than the classification system made by Carl Linnaeus in the 1700’s, except that this one begins with the belief that evolution is the cause of all life on earth, whereas Carl believed God made everything. Carl was not looking to link EVERYTHING with EVERYTHING ELSE, but mainly to see if he could figure out what the created Kinds are. This is why we have a level of biological classification called the Kind.  Just keep in mind that they are creating these trees for their own purposes, NOT recording observations. There is a difference.

The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree.

Bask in the warming glow of the humility it takes to admit that their Guesswork is “Probably not flawless.” Let me say again, we observe the relationship between certain species of the same kind- dogs for instance. But this is a far cry from having evidence that dogs and cabbages have a common ancestor. The biggest issue here, of which they are seemingly unaware, is that such charts are for our own organization of existing things under broad categories. We’ve been grouping the different living things for centuries, but then Darwin came alone and said, “Let’s connect all of the dots until it forms a picture!” After connecting dots for 150 years, the picture is still REALLY hard to read, as will be made evident by the next amazing piece of data which is released like a flock of doves into the night sky.

For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several “vertebrate twigs.”

Yes, they think birds are dinosaurs. Make note that this doesn’t read “descended with modification from dinosaurs.”  Chickens? They ARE dinosaurs, much like the International Space Station is a thatch-roof cottage. And when they say “Evidence discovered in the last 50 years” they mean to say, “Dedication to evolutionary dogma.” I’ll explain the flimsy nature of their ‘evidence’ later. Seriously- go watch Jurassic Park. Now go look at a pigeon. This theory makes Sponge Bob look like Isaac Newton. 

Join me next week for part 4.



About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

4 Responses to Evolution 101-part 3: The Guessing Tree

  1. Greg says:

    …………………you just twist it to what you want to say. Thats so apparent. People shouldnt talk about such subjects as if they were a teacher if they lack even the basic understanding of science.

    • Thanks for writing in Greg. However, I must take you to task on two items- #1. I actually am a science teacher. Like, for a living. So, I’m not talking on this matter AS IF I were a teacher, only AS a teacher. and #2. If you’re going to accuse me of twisting and being ignorant of the basics of science, it would help your position to mention some specifics, otherwise, this is merely base name calling. In which case, per the debate etiquette held by the united states senate since 1954 would dictate, the proper reply would be “I know you are, but what am I?” Or am I thinking of Pee Wee Herman? Sometimes I get those two mixed up.

  2. Greg says:

    And if you delete my comment then you are blatantly not open minded towards over opionions meaning what you say is how it is… which its not.

    • Dear Greg, thanks again for writing. However, this childish attempt to strong arm me into posting your reply is unnecessary, and really does nothing to contribute to the debate at hand, does it? And if you’re going to demand to get posted, proof read my little friend. For “open minded towards over opionions meaning what you say is how it is” is barely English. I’m starting to suspect you’re one of those robots people keep warning me about. Did you even read this post? Or are you A MACHINE?!?!? Cuz that woudld be kinda cool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.


Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane


WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: