Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 10:23 (3933 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course innovations are the key to the evolution of new species, and they would probably not survive if they did not work! This does not mean that new species arrive fully developed without precursors, but that existing organisms change their nature (break free from their constraints), whereas others remain as they were. This is a perfectly conventional view of evolution!
Common descent does not preclude jumps (hence punctuated equilibrium, and the proposal that innovations must work at once if they are to survive). It merely tells us that all living organisms descended from earlier living organisms. The fact that we have not discovered the mechanism does not invalidate the theory, or lend tangible support to theism. We have all seen life descending from earlier life. Has anyone seen life that did not descend from earlier life?-DAVID: Please read this current review of the 'gaps' and 'jumps' problem. The conventional view of evolution is that no gradualism is ever found! The assumption that life descends from earlier life is what Tony is questioning. We know we get life only from life. There is gradual complexity as we dig though the layers from older to newer. We may have inferred too much from that appearance.-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gradualism-the-darwinist-article-of-f...-These quotes are from folks who have accepted Darwin evolution as approaching the truth.-This is a depressing response. We have long, long, long ago agreed that gradualism is out. You have reproduced my post - "Common descent does not preclude jumps (hence punctuated equilibrium, and the proposal that innovations must work at once if they are to survive)" ... and then ignored it. Please stop flogging this dead horse.-Tony also quoted the first article, but missed out the paragraph which says that some groups stay as they are, whereas others innovate. That article does not support separate creation. The new article also debunks gradualism, as well as other aspects of Darwin's theory that we have long, long, long ago agreed are deficient, such as random mutations. If "we get life only from life", the new species can only be the result of innovations from within existing species. Whether this is as a result of inventive interaction among existing communities of intelligent cells in response to environmental changes, or divine intervention (your God dabbling with existing organisms), makes no difference to the keystone of evolutionary theory, which is that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms.