Page 246 - Darwinism Refuted

DARWINISM REFUTED

that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of
molecular findings in this way:
No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual
protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen
everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings
within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary
groupings themselves. 296

The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but
rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article
called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999.
This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and
comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on
the "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to
say that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":
A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more
than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted
plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them.
Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the
picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now,
with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has
gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought
they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full
DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes,
researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But
"nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The
Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the
comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from
the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well... 297
In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses
more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and
genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to
the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996
study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of
rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put
cows closer to whales than to horses.

244