Quote
Found a little more.
Quote
When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well. Now some microbiologists, pointing to evidence that microbes have swapped genes wantonly over evolutionary history, say that many of these genes are an unreliable guide to evolutionary history and the old tree is still basically sound. But others think it's time to uproot the old tree and are proposing candidates for new trees based on specific features of the genome and cell structure. And still others worry that gene swapping has turned the tree of life into a tangled briar whose lineages will be next to impossible to discern.
I followed up & found similar news here, here, here, and even here. <4 links there.

Edit: The last one's fun. They show a proposed a new non-tree tree.

So homology is not always a predictor of relatedness between species. We have known that since bats were removed from their classification as birds. Now, genetics gives insight into relatedness that could not be seen through homology. There may even have been more than one common ancestor for the tree of life and those common ancestors interbred.

Were you expecting that science is not supposed to learn anything or find out they were wrong about something?

So, how do these revelations from these websites knock evolution off its position as the most well supported theory on how life on this planet developed? Please give details in your explanation because I'm not good at gaining understanding from your usual vague and confusing statements.

More importantly, how do these "new" revelations provide support for your God-did-it-in-7-days theory, or the God-designed-it theory? I read the websites and the research they quoted, yet found no supportive evidence for 7-day-creation 6000 years ago. In fact there was no evidence at all that support the existence of God at work in forming life.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke