This topic will be broken up into 4 parts, Darwin's Tree of Life, Darwin and the fossil Record, Molecular Phylogeny and why this is not scientific.
Darwin's Tree of Life
"This
was the process Darwin illustrated in The Origin of Species. The vertical
dimension in Darwin's drawing represents time, with oldest at the bottom and
newest at the top, while the horizontal dimension represents differences among
organisms. Darwin believed that minor variations within the original ancestral
species were gradually amplified over the course of many generations into
larger differences that separated species from one another. As he put it,
"the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species,
steadily tend to increase, till they equal the greater differences between species"
Taking each horizontal line in his illustration to indicate a thousand
generations, Darwin estimated that "six new species, marked by the letters
n14 to z14" at the top, might have been produced after fourteen thousand
generations. In fact, since "the original species (I) differed largely
from (A), standing nearly at the extreme end of the original genus" at the
bottom, it seemed probable that "the six new species descended from (I),
and the eight descendants from (A), will have to be ranked as very distinct genera,
or even as distinct sub-families." Still greater differences could be
explained on a larger time scale. For example, if one were to take "each
horizontal line [to] represent a million or more generations," Darwin saw
"no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the
formation of genera alone," but considered it equally capable of producing
"new families, or orders,... [or] classes."
Thus the large
differences separating orders and classes would emerge only after a very long
history of small differences: "As natural selection acts solely by
accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great
or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps." These
"short and slow steps" give Darwin's illustration its characteristic
branching-tree pattern. Therefore, if the bottom line in Darwin's diagram represents
varieties, the top line might be different species or genera. If we take those
genera, put them at the bottom, and start the process over, we might get
families or orders; then if we put those orders at the bottom and repeat the
process, we might get classes or even phyla. But in Darwin's theory, there is
no way phylum-level differences could have appeared right at the start. Yet
that is what the fossil record shows."
Jonathan
Wells. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About
Evolution Is Wrong
Next week we will be looking at Darwin and the fossil record.
Remember..... Have an Intelligent Faith!!
-Nelis
Well, this video appears above and it is a good one. What I question is the conclusion to the whole matter - I sound like Solomon - but what I mean to say is that other than the statement "Darwins tree of life doesn't fit the fossil record," there isn't any other "clear" conclusion stated. Perhaps this is designed to be clear enough, but perhaps something of the order of a clear statement like "In other words, Darwin is just plain wrong." And, please forgive me for mentioning it, the background music is a major distraction. I like music, I play guitar (some), but in these videos it is much too loud, in my humble opinion. Anyway, perhaps a stronger conclusion will be stated in future videos and/or print. Good stuff, Pastor J.
ReplyDelete