Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 06, 2013, 15:41 (4251 days ago) @ David Turell

Morphology was the first way to look at an evolutionary tree of life. This is comparison by analogy. The better way is homology of DNA, where it is found that patches of DNA that look human are all over the place:-"Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation . . . [[Abstract, "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis," PNAS February 13, 2007 vol. 104 no. 7 2043-2049.]"-My theory is a better fit than most of the popular ones. DNA as a standard code has been around since the beginning of life. Because it has an overlay of epigentic mechanisms, now just being elucidated, it can cause variations on the original themes of types, which then tested by natural selection allows for chosing advanced types. However, epigentics works in large jumps, not the itty-bitty gradualism of Darwin. Epigentics doesn't need itty-bitty in time or form. This fits Gould's punc-inc. It also fits the Cambrian Explosion. And it fits the sudden jump to humans from primates over a 20 million year period. The only thing I believe, but cannot prove, is that evolution was guided to arrive at humans. The above abstract finds DNA humanness everywhere. That fits my theory of guidance and also fits with my belief in God.