Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, October 2, 2015

Evolutionists Protecting Phoney Jobs

In the politically incorrect and guaranteed offensive movie Blazing Saddles, Governor Le Petomane (Mel Brooks) has a realization, and shouts, "We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen!" This is what evolutionary scientists have been doing for decades.

Although evolution is worthless and actually harmful to science, its proponents continue to protect their money tree by playing fast and loose with the data. An old, failed concept of the "Tree of Life" is being reworked again.

Evolution actually hinders science. So what do those owlhoots do? Make statements about how evolutionary interpretations are the only way to examine scientific data, make circular arguments, ignore inconvenient information, denigrate people who think for themselves and reject evolution, and then try to bring back failed hypotheses. Darwin's "Tree of Life" has long been uprooted and eaten by mustangs, but they are trying to rework it through a faith-based initiative couched in confident assertions, cherry picking, and scientific jargon. But it's as helpful as prairie dust to clothes drying on the line. When all the evidence is examined, the obvious fact is that life was created, and evolution is false.
A valiant effort to construct Darwin’s tree icon in an open-source way may only serve to perpetuate a myth.

What do evolutionists do to look busy like scientists? They stitch together leaves on branches. That is, they assume Darwin’s view of universal common ancestry (the “tree of life” image), then try to find ancestor-descendent relationships between “leaves” (observable species) on the tips of branches here or there. One group may try to unite the marsupials. Another group may try to unite the slime molds. A third may try unify bats by common ancestry. This “tree building” exercise, called phylogenetics, assumes that all the branches connect to a common, single root.

Yet nobody has tried to connect all the branches into a single tree—till now. The new project, however, depends on the veracity of earlier published trees, which are usually controversial. In fact, published phylogenies often point out severe conflicts, alternative possible trees, or confounding influences like horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or “convergent evolution.” When assembling them together, the overall tree cannot be better than the branches. So is the result a tree of life or a tree of lie?
To read the rest, head on over to "Propping Up Darwin’s Tree of Lie". 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!