According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Syriusly]

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Maybe your evo website is bs

The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS. Chronological layers is BS. Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years. Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life. We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads. As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree. We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species. We are related via human species. Three separate bushes.

ETA: Holy guacamole. It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

Is this purposely incoherent and rambly? What is your point? Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys. Fine! Ok so we came from different bushes. That must make you feel special right? Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here. Scientifically explain it to us. Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you. We want to know how you think humans got here.

The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong. The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life. What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related. We didn't come from fish nor apes. However, we'll have to wait for their findings. I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.

What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings. They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else. It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work. The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.

I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve. That's creation science and my views haven't changed. It's actually deepened my faith . The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.

Listen to this guy. He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution. Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.

From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington

Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.

In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."

 

[james bond]

[
As for Lucy and the rest, It may be a drawing, but it does show the FRAUD OF EVOS which you have ignored and cannot debunk.

No- frankly your cartoon just shows the FRAUD of you Christianists.

There is nothing to debunk- your cartoon is a fraud.

I gave you the citation to the Smithsonian where real scientists have real information about human evolution.

Want more from actual scientists?
Human Odyssey FAQs

I've been there many times and used to have a pass. That's just theory and the scientists could be wrong. If they were right, then the genome research would back it up with TOL but that's not what is happening. It also backs up what I've been saying about science being a cold mother. A scientist could pick something like string theory and research it for twenty years and have nothing to show for it. What about Donald Johanson who found Lucy? He's SOL. If they were right like Einstein (he wrote his papers at 26), then they become even more famous and admired.

 

[james bond]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

We'll never find out how old the earth is. I think it's relatively young.
It should be around the same age.
No.
I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter. Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We'll never find out how old the earth is. I

Wrong again...we already know eaxactly how old the Earth is. Damn dude, children are taught this in 5th grade. You really should not ever open your mouth about any scientific topic ever again.

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Well lets see what your evo site actually says- it says that Evolutionary Trees are
a) visual representations of a pattern of evolution and
b) they are hypothesis's based upon evidence

What is an evolutionary tree?

Evolutionary trees, also known as phylogenetic trees, are visual representations of this branching pattern of evolution.1 A phylogenetic tree may represent the full diversity of life springing from our universal common ancestor (as does the tree above) or a single branch of the full tree of life, such as the vertebrate, fungus, or beetle lineages.

Trees are hypotheses

If you had read about the evolutionary history of whales in the 1970s or 80s, you might have seen a tree that looks something like that shown below left, which implies that whales are closely related to an extinct group of mammals called the mesonychids. Today, we know that the origin of whales is better represented by the tree on the right. Whales and water-loving hippos are closely related! Why the change? Because the discovery of new DNA evidence caused paleontologists to re-evaluate their interpretations of the fossil evidence, leading to a revision of our understanding of the evolutionary relationships in this group.

This example highlights a basic characteristic of evolutionary trees: they are hypotheses that have been tested with evidence. Because they are supported by so many lines of evidence, widely accepted phylogenetic trees are unlikely to have their branches rearranged (though new branches are likely to be added as species are discovered). However, a change in our understanding is always possible. If new evidence is discovered or old evidence is reinterpreted, we must adjust our views of evolutionary relationships to reflect those data. Ignoring evidence would be bad science!

 

[Marion Morrison]

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?

Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence

And yet another moronic statement. For one, scientists don't think cells were poofed into existence; only religious nutballs like you give any credit to such an idea. Second, evolution does not address the topic of abiogenesis. So, being the rabid little religious nutball you are, you don't even understand that creationism and evolution have no conflict.

Your conflict only arises because you subscribe to the ridiculous creationism described in your book of bronze age fairy tales.

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Where in your 'evo website' does it say that the concept of having 'common ancestor' is a hypothesis?

Quoting your site:

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?

Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?

It is, dumbass: What's At The Bottom Of The Deepest Hole On Earth?

 

[Syriusly]

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?

Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?

Why do you think that the earth should be?

Is that based upon a fairy in the sky poofing earth into existence 6,000 years ago or life being millions of years old?

 

[Syriusly]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

We'll never find out how old the earth is. I think it's relatively young..

Based upon what?

A book written a couple thousand years ago?
Or on science?
Or on your gut feeling?

 

[Syriusly]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

It should be around the same age..

Again based upon what?

If you are a believer in the Bible being literally true- then the Bible says plant life existed a day before the sun.

If you don't believe in the Bible being literally true- then what are you basing this idea that plant life and the sun should be around the same age?

 

[Marion Morrison]

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?

Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?

Why do you think that the earth should be?

Is that based upon a fairy in the sky poofing earth into existence 6,000 years ago or life being millions of years old?

Life being millions of years old. Bones don't decay that fast.

 

[james bond]

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Maybe your evo website is bs

The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS. Chronological layers is BS. Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years. Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life. We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads. As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree. We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species. We are related via human species. Three separate bushes.

ETA: Holy guacamole. It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

Is this purposely incoherent and rambly? What is your point? Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys. Fine! Ok so we came from different bushes. That must make you feel special right? Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here. Scientifically explain it to us. Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you. We want to know how you think humans got here.

The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong. The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life. What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related. We didn't come from fish nor apes. However, we'll have to wait for their findings. I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.

What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings. They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else. It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work. The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.

I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve. That's creation science and my views haven't changed. It's actually deepened my faith . The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.

Listen to this guy. He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution. Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.

From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington

Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.

In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."

You just don't understand how scientific theories work. In Darwin's time, Lemarck and Cuvier ruled and their theories influenced him. He used Lemarckism of the environment leading to change to explain natural selection. However, he had different ideas than Lemarck of how it worked. Fast forward to today and these biotech scientists use molecules, DNA, RNA examples as different ideas of how it worked. I'm pretty sure these sensors he's referring to scan a wider field of vision than our sight can pick up.

 

[Syriusly]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

I looked at whether a single cell was poofed into existence versus an adult Adam and Eve were poofed into existence and opted for the latter. Atheist scientists who proposed the former never looked at the latter while creation scientists looked at both.

Okay so we have established that you do not agree with the science behind Evolution.

But you didn't answer my last question- do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He used Lemarckism of the environment leading to change to explain natural selection

Another shameless lie. This is 100%, ass-backwards false. Darwinism was a direct refutation of LaMarkism and of Cuvier. Damn dude...you really need to stop talking now.

 

[Syriusly]

So James- do you believe the Creationist's Time Line?

Why isn't the earth a mile deep in fossils, then?

Why do you think that the earth should be?

Is that based upon a fairy in the sky poofing earth into existence 6,000 years ago or life being millions of years old?

Life being millions of years old. Bones don't decay that fast.

Actually bones decay pretty fast- on a geological scale.

The fact is that conditions for preserving actual fossils is pretty rare. Bones generally will just decay away given enough time and left in natural conditions.

Fossilization requires cells to be in exactly the right situation to be replaced by minerals and to leave an imprint of what the cells looked like. Fossils are not bones- they are images of what the bones looked like- with all of the animal cells replaced by minerals.

Now lets look at the opposite side of the equation- how can there be so many fossils if the world is only 6,000 years old?

How do we have fossils of sea life in Wyoming? How are we finding fossils hundreds of feet below the surface- if the world is only 6,000 years old?

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe your evo website is bs

The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS. Chronological layers is BS. Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years. Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life. We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads. As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree. We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species. We are related via human species. Three separate bushes.

ETA: Holy guacamole. It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

Is this purposely incoherent and rambly? What is your point? Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys. Fine! Ok so we came from different bushes. That must make you feel special right? Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here. Scientifically explain it to us. Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you. We want to know how you think humans got here.

The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong. The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life. What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related. We didn't come from fish nor apes. However, we'll have to wait for their findings. I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.

What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings. They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else. It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work. The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.

I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve. That's creation science and my views haven't changed. It's actually deepened my faith . The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.

Listen to this guy. He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution. Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.

From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington

Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.

In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."

You just don't understand how scientific theories work. In Darwin's time, Lemarck and Cuvier ruled and their theories influenced him. He used Lemarckism of the environment leading to change to explain natural selection. However, he had different ideas than Lemarck of how it worked. Fast forward to today and these biotech scientists use molecules, DNA, RNA examples as different ideas of how it worked. I'm pretty sure these sensors he's referring to scan a wider field of vision than our sight can pick up.

It says right in the article that he studies evolution.

Fascinating how you provide a link to an evolutionary scientist to try to disprove evolution.

In fact, Andy Ellington studies evolution. A self-described evolutionary engineer, he uses evolutionary principles to evolve molecules and organisms that serve all sorts of functions: from warning us of a chemical weapons attack to fighting HIV to detecting cancer. Said Ellington, "I don't make the molecule; I don't make the organism — I make them better."

Andy Ellington is a scientist- and is studying aspects of evolution

Evolutionary origins and directed evolution of RNA. - PubMed - NCBI