That's nice. Like I said, you can't make a phylogenetic argument without discussing shared traits, i.e. homologies.
You can't discuss all mammals without discussing cats. That doesn't mean that all mammals are cats.
If humans and cats shared several genes that had 100% the same sequence while the same gene in other apes differed from humans by 10%, then this would falsify evolution. There are homologies that would falsify evolution. It isn't simply homology. It is the pattern of homology that matters.
My claim is based on the basic logic of evolutionary reasoning that is demonstrated daily:
1. The more distantly a sequence is shared among different lineages, the more ancient it will be assumed to be.
Common ancestry is already established by the fact that these DNA sequences fall into a nested hierarchy. Using that knowledge, we can then determine how old these genes are. The age isn't assumed. It is a conclusion drawn from evidence.
Thus, sequences do not "fall into" an evolutionary phylogeny.
It would be far more accurate to say an evolutionary phylogeny "falls around" the sequences.
This is completely false. Random sequences do not produce well supported phylogenies. If evolution did not occur, then a well supported phylogeny would not be detected.
"The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (
Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (
Archie 1989;
Faith and Cranston 1991;
Farris 1989;
Felsenstein 1985;
Hillis 1991;
Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992;
Huelsenbeck et al. 2001;
Klassen et al. 1991)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
There are numerous statistical tests to determine if a phylogeny is real or not.
Evolution is a fog that settles around the shifting landscape of data.
The facts demonstrate otherwise.
Bald assertion. Vague claims like that usually don't withstand scrutiny.
You always ignore the data.
"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in
Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see
Table 1.3.1;
Felsenstein 1982;
Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome
c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see
Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13;
Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150;
Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161;
Haeckel 1898, p. 55;
Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome
c studies see
McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973;
Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence
See, you didn't say "You're wrong, evolutionists couldn't make those assumptions" because you know I'm right that they could.
Imagine if a defense attorney made this argument:
"Your honor, if the prosecution had not found my client's DNA, fingerprints, fibers, hair samples, and shoe prints at the crime scene, they would still assume that my client committed the crime. Therefore, I ask that the court dismiss all of this evidence because they are unfairly assuming my client is guilty."
Does that make sense to you?
What you are essentially arguing is that if we hadn't found all of this evidence for evolution that we would assume evolution is true anyway. That is perhaps the most backwards argument I have ever come across. First, it is a tacit admission that the evidence supports evolution. Second, you think that your fantasyland where there is no evidence somehow trumps the real world that is full of evidence for evolution.
(Actually I provided a direct example of this with the ERVs and mammal placentas in the
other thread)
No, you didn't. You made unevidenced claims that viral proteins meant to link the viral capsid with the host cell membrane taking on the same function when expressed in human cells is somehow a miracle. You never backed up this claim, other than to assert it.
