You've also admitted that you enter into these debates disingenuously because you'll never admit when you're proven wrong - your words.
C’mon, Joe, you're better than that! Unless you can provide my exact quote saying that I will never
admit when I am wrong, I claim that you have fabricated this in an attempt to besmirch my character. (However, I will give you credit for not calling me a "liar" as others on this forum often do.)
So you didn't read the articles you presented as evidence? Both of your "supporting" articles make changes to Darwin's tree but still fully support a tree model with horizontal and vertical growth patterns.
No surprises there. All scientific articles I have ever read where the evidence clearly conflicts with conventional evolutionary wisdom the researchers always say something like this…
Mammals Beat Reptiles in Battle of Evolution
(LiveScience, July 31, 2009)"The timing of the rate increases does not correspond to the appearance of key characteristics that have been invoked to explain the evolutionary success of these groups, such as hair on mammals or mammals’ well-coordinated chewing ability or feathers on birds," Alfaro said. "Our results suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity. It may be that something more subtle explains the evolutionary success of mammals, birds and fish. We need to look for new explanations."
Wait… mammals beat reptiles? That's not what all my science textbooks said.
Your original article claims that there is "no evidence at all" to support Darwin...or at least the part that is not behind a subscription wall of the infotainment magazine of choice.
Here is the full article: http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
More context…Nobody is arguing - yet - that the tree concept has outlived its usefulness in animals and plants. While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe. In that respect, Darwin's vision has triumphed: he knew nothing of micro-organisms and built his theory on the plants and animals he could see around him.
Even so, it is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary... but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not. "We should relax a bit on this," says Doolittle. "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."
But as is the case with historical sciences, there are always two sides to the story…Others, however, don't think it is time to relax. Instead, they see the uprooting of the tree of life as the start of something bigger. "It's part of a revolutionary change in biology," says Dupré. "Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages."
Rose goes even further. "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. If he is right, the tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. "The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on."
Of course I disagree with the last line from Bapteste. See: human and chimp genomes… Not! Even! Close!
John Hawks says, "Just glancing at the ideograms, they don't even look like homologous chromosomes! Obviously they are..." LOL!
He added in another posting
(January 2010): "Two knowledgeable people independently told me we should wait for the gorilla. We'll see if it's equally weird in some third way, or if chimps are the odd ones out."
Well, the results for the gorilla genome are in and they are equally weird!! Now what?