“I think” – Charles Darwin… “I think not” – Science

Darwin_and_The_Tree_of_Life

In 1837, shortly following his famous voyage onboard the HMS Beagle (1831-1836), Charles Darwin made a famous sketch on page 36 of his “B” notebook with an equally famous inscription. That sketch is now known as the first rendering of a “tree of life” and the inscription above it read: “I think.” This sketch became the basis for the theory of Darwinian Evolution wherein a lower form of life (such as a single cell protozoa) supposedly evolved gradually, successively, and with great sophistication into the multitude of complex life (lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!) we now observe around us. Darwin had stated “It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another” which led him to reject Lemarck’s independent lineage that progressed to higher forms of life (more like a single line for each species increasing in complexity within that species) in favor of a more interconnected tree that supported his speculation that “one species does change into another…”  (Darwin’s “Red” notebook).

The sketch was modified and first published in the famous (or infamous) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859 as a diagram in Chapter IV.

Darwintreeoflife

In the 1872 printing of the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin punctuated the importance of such a “tree of life” by adding these words:

The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during former years may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have at all times overmastered other species in the great battle for life. The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was young, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups. Of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great branches, yet survive and bear the other branches; so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods, very few have left living and modified descendants. From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off; and these fallen branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only in a fossil state… As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications.

A fundamental aspect that is scientifically required for this “tree of life” is that there must be some kind of clear linkage along the “chain” or up the trunk to the branches showing how the more complex life form is related to the earlier less complex life form as further hypothesized by Earnst Haeckle in the 1860’s and 1870’s. The initial linkage believed to demonstrate such a relationship was morphology; that is the outward appearance of organisms. For example, this relationship is why Darwinian evolution holds that humans evolved from apes, because we appear to share a similar outward appearance, sort of. This theory was very rough and does not really stand up to any rigorous scientific scrutiny and therefore underwent an evolution itself when genetic research matured (through the study of DNA and RNA sequences).

With the progress of scientific knowledge and he hope of evolutionists was that genetics would confirm the assumptions of morphology yet they did not; in fact genetics challenges every aspect of morphology. The findings of genetic research were then

In my talk “Science Falsely So Called”, part of a series titled “A Rocket Scientist Debunks Evolution“, we take a brief journey through a few high school and college biology textbooks.

From this survey of biology textbooks we take a critical look at the so called “evidence” for Darwinian evolution and find that the vast majority of said “evidence” are line drawings called “phylogenetic trees” or “trees of life” which “evolved” (pun intended) from Darwin’s sketch of 1839. These trees are supposed to demonstrate the lineage from early low forms of life to higher more complicated forms of life as explained above and in fact there are fantastic pictures of some kind of low form of life at the base of said tree and then several higher life forms at the tips of the branches. Viola, evolution! But is this scientific or smoke and mirrors?

I have been saying for years that these “trees of life” are nothing more than artistic impressions of what Darwinian evolution teaches and NOT what the evidence shows and therefore these “trees” will ultimately be uprooted to be burned on the pile of discarded scientific flops; even by the staunchest of evolutionary “scientists”.

Well, that day is rapidly approaching as the scientific community continues to look at the evidence and using real science to draw conclusions from comparing that evidence with the “phylogenetic trees”. Just as science once stated that the earth was flat; which Christopher Columbus rejected in favor of what the Bible always taught, science eventually caught up and now accepts a spheroidal planet it is again coming around to the biblical understanding that every creature brings forth after his kind. Or at least admitting the scientific bankruptcy of the Darwinian hypothesis. Read more in this article from a secular scientific periodical… I would edit Darwin’s words to say, “I think NOT!”

  DarwinSketch.article  I-think-not

I will continue to reiterate without fail that The Anvil of God’s Word is sure and true, a solid rock. Strike upon it and know the truth and the truth shall set you free!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *