I found something today that I thought I should
pass along. Apparently, lately more high profile scientists have been
willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even if that means
breaking with the "central dogma" of evolution.
A professor at Dartmouth is stiring things up by proposing a radically
different "tree of life", based on data he feels is solid (read more here).
It turns out that depending on which protein, DNA or RNA (structural
form) you choose to trace an organism's history, you get a different
relationships between organisms. If evolution were true, you would see
the same relationships no matter which data subject you study.
It seems that evolution has been falsified, but this idea does not go down easy. There is much at stake philosophically.
An ardent defender of evolution is bemoaning the "fall" of some of his
colleages on his blog "Why Evolution is True". It's an interesting look
at what is happening at the top of the scientific battle over
evolution, from the Darwinist perspective. Check it out here.
My thanks to my friends at evolutionnews.org who tipped me off with this article.
Things are getting interesting!
