Darwin debunked............ (21)

Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram

Charles Darwin's “tree of life,” which shows how species are purportedly related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists, reports I4U News on May 16.

The tree of life is a metaphor used to describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. Its use dates back to at least the early 1800s. It was employed by Charles Darwin to express the concept of the branching divergence of varieties and then species in a process of common descent from ancestors.

The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolize the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Modern scientists and geneticists are now saying that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading. A more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an “impenetrable thicket.”

Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a “tangled bank.”

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

...continued reading....

So they are not debunking his Theory, just the type of vegetation used.

It is more complex than vegetation.. there was a lot of cross breeding between "primates". If you read for example ancient Indian (sub continent not native American) texts, some of which are 10,000 yrs old, the only logical conclusion anyone can draw is alien intervention..


Kinda like people quoting Einstein theories with out realizing that some of his"absolute proofs" have been shown to be wrong.. John Bell from Belfast disproved Albert's thoughts on quantum mechanics/physics. Only one of many examples I could quote...

But of course.

That is why they are called theories in the first place.

I am with you on that Molly. What I laugh at is people going into google and quoting people like Darwin or other with knowing anything about what motivated them to come to the conclusions they made...

Darwin is no more right or wrong than what regions say about the origins of life on this rock. I could make a strong argument that the world is about 6,000 yrs old by using rock formations in the Grand Canyon that go against what geologists say... There are layers of rock there that go against all logical thinking...

However, they are still...theories

And you don't have any...