[Taxacom] Bible does not support creation science

[Richard Zander]

In a long line of (possibly) risible but (possibly) instructive
contributions to Taxacom, I ask you to consider the following argument:

 

Since the nodes of a cladogram are never named beyond "shared ancestor,"
cladistics does not require any particular process in making the split
between branches. What if it were an act of special creation?

 

The cladogram in Genesis indicates (in somewhat florid language) that
plants were created on the 3rd Day, then fish and birds on the 5th Day,
and animals including man on the 6th Day. Each is clearly a cladistic
split, a divine Decision. 

 

So . . . we have a cladogram of sorts . . . (plants((birds,fish)(land
animals))). We can therefore test the biblical cladogram against modern
cladistic thought, entirely without postulating macroevolution as one
group evolving from another. Note that a cladogram does not model serial
relationships like macroevolution, and fits in well with creation
science. 

 

If one compares the biblical cladogram with a scientific tree of life,
we immediately see major discrepancies. Facts, even when interpreted
through special creation as a process generating patterns in nature,
does not support the Genesis story. Thus, we falsify the methods of
"creation science" or the Bible, due to the discrepancy.

 

*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************