IN JULY 1837, Charles Darwin had a flash of inspiration. In his study at his house in London, he turned to a new page in his red leather notebook and wrote, "I think". Then he drew a spindly sketch of a tree.
As far as we know, this was the first time Darwin toyed with the concept of a "tree of life" to explain the evolutionary relationships between different species. It was to prove a fruitful idea: by the time he published On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of...
One way zoologists use cladistic, evolutionary "evidence" is in promoting the Bonobo ape as an example of nonviolent, matriarchal, pansexual society, as opposed to Chimps, which are (like man) patriarchal & violent.
But it is easy to raise objections to any attempt to make apes or any other creature ethically normative.
I'm not sure what makes this news -- in the 150 years since Darwin, evolutionary biologists have abandoned the direct tree of life model where ancestor A gave rise to descendant B. Mainly because there's no direct evidence to support this conclusion for a variety of reasons I won't get into. Now the theory posits that both A and B evolved from an earlier proto-ancestor C, with C dying out. Man did not evolve from ape, but man and ape evolved from a proto-ancestor that gave rise to both. (No trace of this proto-ancestor is left, which is a problem since it's conjectural and leaves evolutionary biology hanging until it's found.) Any basic intro to evolutionary biology will talk about this modification. This is new about like saying the world has switched to the metric system since Darwin's time. (Some journalist will probably see this and write the article.)
Darwin made a serious blunder. what he really saw was the vine of Rev. 14:19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. Too bad he didn`t recognize it.
In addition to Darwin's model having no necessary connection with reality, his disciples no only cannot think of superior alternatives, they ignore the superior alternatives that are available because it does not fit their paradigm. Their rejection of an all-powerful, all-wise, all-knowing Creator God blinds them to the reality that their most recent findings in genetics so obviously support: God used some of the same basic stuff (particular sequences within DNA and RNA) in many different species. But rather than concede the obvious, these "scientists" are busy groping in the dark for theories that can explain how the stuff got from one species to another "horizontally" rather than "vertically" instead of dealing with the best explanation - that it happened "simultaneously" or nearly so (give or take a day or two).
Darwin was wrong not because his "tree" has been falsified, but because his choice of a tree as a model for biological descent was an arbitrary, unprovable, categorical hypothesis that had no necessary connection with reality.
Scientists & their disciples have a weakness for believing a theory is true just because they can't think of superior alternatives, which is a form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.