Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

[Bugeyedcreepy]

nteresting conclusion. So Tas asked about "this cladogram" and I gave may opinion of it, along with a well supported explanation of why I have reached that opinion. And this makes me wholly ignorant?

Yes.

The clade is in error (simple), while others may or may not be more accurate...simple.

Certain technigues for devising cladograms are common enough to be a "method" taught. Interpretation is hypothesis based (not just my wholly ignorant opinion) which require certain assumptions to be veritable (not just my wholly ignorant opinion). Perhaps you are arguing with the conclusions of the contributors referred to in post #5?

No.

To be clear, it's because of this statement of yours that @tas8831 refers to here:

Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?​

Do you still stand by that as being accurate? (I understand it's been a while...)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry DH I get his non-point. All that I said is correct.

Uhu. Especially the part that was bolded in his post, I bet....

See next...the factual content will incite you to even more subtle insults (which I await gladly). The final two paragraphs, being only my opinion (based on repeated observation), can be accepted as constructive criticism, or emotionally reacted to in denial and insult...I'll watch and see which one you are.

Not sure what paragraphs of which post you are talking about.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes.

No.

To be clear, it's because of this statement of yours that @tas8831 refers to here:

Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?​

Do you still stand by that as being accurate? (I understand it's been a while...)

This was a typical attempt at deflection on his part, and now yours...is this part of the MO for avoiding the obvious conclusions from these other peoples (scientists) work, because it demonstrates you may be incorrect in your position? I do understand your philosophical paradigm does nor allow for pure reason (Sadly I was there for far too long). At least when actually shown to be incorrect (here and on other forums) I am objective and mature enough to confess (here and on other forums) to having been incorrect (because it is about truth).

Being open to possibility is a good thing but possibility does not equal reality only possibility (some possibilities being more plausible than others). Do you know what this last statement even means? Knowing the difference is essential to intellectual integrity and growth!

 

[pshun2404]

Yes.

No.

To be clear, it's because of this statement of yours that @tas8831 refers to here:

Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?​

Do you still stand by that as being accurate? (I understand it's been a while...)

No.

So you agree these assumptions are necessary to arrive at your position?

 

[tas8831]

This was a typical attempt at deflection on his part,

Deflection?

I got the cladogram from the debatingchristianity thread in which YOU interpreted the cladogram incorrectly (and rather naively, I must say):

"....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on..."


I actually had wanted to see if your 'interpretation' had matured at all since then.

Nope.

Not a deflection - it was actually the main impetus of the thread - to show that creationists are usually way too confident that they known things when they really don't.


I proved my point.

Still waiting for you to explain how a bone received parasympathetic stimulation.

 

[tas8831]

Yet it all came from sources generally supportive of your camp...oh well...I guess they are wrong and you are correct. Are you sure Understanding Evolution got it wrong? Your camp usually quotes it as some sort of authoritative resource. No? You know better than this consensus view? Wow! Please let me read some of your papers.

"....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on..."

Please provide a link to the Understanding Evolution site in which it is explained that a cladogram's branches indicate one group 'comes from' another.


Why is it so blasted hard for creationists to admit to even trivial errors?


Here is the Understanding Evolution page for understanding phylogenetic trees:

Understanding phylogenies

I sure hope you have a different one in mind.

 

[pshun2404]

Deflection?

I got the cladogram from the debatingchristianity thread in which YOU interpreted the cladogram incorrectly (and rather naively, I must say):

"....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on..."


I actually had wanted to see if your 'interpretation' had matured at all since then.

Nope.

Not a deflection - it was actually the main impetus of the thread - to show that creationists are usually way too confident that they known things when they really don't.


I proved my point.

Still waiting for you to explain how .

The link you both posted had zero to do with the subject matter at hand (hence deflection)

also I never said "a bone received parasympathetic stimulation" but thanks for misrepresenting.

Now back to the topic at hand. Which Understanding Evolution "assumption(s)" do you hold to be established facts?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No.

So you agree these assumptions are necessary to arrive at your position?

Not really, the evidence still points to this as the best explanation of the relationships between the organisms. It's quite well understood by anyone who takes the time to learn the science and analyse the evidence.

Maybe you tell me then, could this "assumed" phylogenetic tree be formed any other way with the empirical data from the genomics?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

This was a typical attempt at deflection on his part, and now yours...is this part of the MO for avoiding the obvious conclusions from these other peoples (scientists) work, because it demonstrates you may be incorrect in your position? I do understand your philosophical paradigm does nor allow for pure reason (Sadly I was there for far too long). At least when actually shown to be incorrect (here and on other forums) I am objective and mature enough to confess (here and on other forums) to having been incorrect (because it is about truth).

Being open to possibility is a good thing but possibility does not equal reality only possibility (some possibilities being more plausible than others). Do you know what this last statement even means? Knowing the difference is essential to intellectual integrity and growth!

Seriously, what are you talking about? What am I deflecting from? I'm in accordance with these other people's (scientists) work, it's You that is discordant here, not us.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello all -

I came across this diagram that was presented on another forum, and it received an interesting interpretation from a creationist there. Can a creationist tell us what they think this diagram indicates, in terms of who is related to who and how?

thanks!

Sure, it represents a mythical ancestral line, that in each and every case ends on common ancestors that bridge the gap, that are every one missing.

I’d like to see someone draw a realistic one wher each distinct type just ends, and another type exists, and stop adding missing common ancestors to bridge the gaps on every single line that exists.......

But that would be too much like honest and factual, so we certainly won’t see one of those anytime soon.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

False. These diagrams are the result of mapping out data. The structure isn't super-imposed on it. It is just the result of the mapping out of data.

Which claimed data is full of errors.

Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing

“Phylogenetic analysis reveals important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy. We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

I mean you couldn’t even get the cladogram for finches that we can directly observe correct, and you actually believe you have it correct for things you have no DNA to test based upon those phenotype determinations?

Really? The DNA falsified your cladograms built for finches we could directly observe in life, and you think you can actually figure it out based on phenotype differences from a pile of bones?

Just how deep down the rabbit hole have you gone to be so brainwashed?

 

[Jimmy D]

Sure, it represents a mythical ancestral line, that in each and every case ends on common ancestors that bridge the gap, that are every one missing.

I’d like to see someone draw a realistic one wher each distinct type just ends, and another type exists, and stop adding missing common ancestors to bridge the gaps on every single line that exists.......

But that would be too much like honest and factual, so we certainly won’t see one of those anytime soon.

And what is your explanation for the diversity of creatures on that cladogram? It wouldn't involve a super-ape with magical genomes would it?

You appear to believe that you have a better understanding of the subject than the world's biologists, how about drawing us a cladogram with your explanation?

Put up or shut up.

 

[tas8831]

Sure, it represents a mythical ancestral line, that in each and every case ends on common ancestors that bridge the gap, that are every one missing.

I’d like to see someone draw a realistic one wher each distinct type just ends, and another type exists, and stop adding missing common ancestors to bridge the gaps on every single line that exists.......

But that would be too much like honest and factual, so we certainly won’t see one of those anytime soon.

So you cannot understand it, either.

Thanks.

 

[tas8831]

You appear to believe that you have a better understanding of the subject than the world's biologists, how about drawing us a cladogram with your explanation?

Put up or shut up.

It matches his expertise on genetics being greater than all geneticists - only a true expert can use terms like "allie" and "genetic strand" and be taken seriously.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And what is your explanation for the diversity of creatures on that cladogram? It wouldn't involve a super-ape with magical genomes would it?

Its only you that considers a genome with more function as magical. Tas has the same problem with math. If the genome is now, let’s use 80% non-functional due to mutational errors, then it was once 80% more functional. Simple math. You can not get less unless you start with more.

If you have 2 apples and know you subtracted 3 apples, you had to start with 5 apples, yes?

I know evolutionary supporters like to deny reality, but really? Did none of you learn basic math in school?

You appear to believe that you have a better understanding of the subject than the world's biologists, how about drawing us a cladogram with your explanation?

Put up or shut up.

A realistic one would start and stop with every distinct species. The ones you have are fine, you just need to erase the lines that connect every distinct Kind where you insert ancestors that don’t exist. You know, the imaginary ones that can’t be found, yet are required to connect your lines together for every single one of them.

Oh know, I don’t know more than them, I just accept the fact the lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors are imaginary.....

And speaking of putting up or shutting up, where is one of those magical non-existent common ancestors we have been asking evolutionists to provide for 200+ years?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you cannot understand it, either.

Thanks.

Better than you it appears since you can’t understand lines connecting to non-existent common ancestors are imaginary lines drawn to imaginary ancestors......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It matches his expertise on genetics being greater than all geneticists - only a true expert can use terms like "allie" and "genetic strand" and be taken seriously.

Yah, I know, your best argument is a spelling error.......

Seems others would have no problem with what I mean when talking of the genetic strand.

The Genetic Strand

The Genetic Strand

Such strawmen you all always use....

 

[Jimmy D]

Its only you that considers a genome with more function as magical. Tas has the same problem with math. If the genome is now, let’s use 80% non-functional due to mutational errors, then it was once 80% more functional. Simple math. You can not get less unless you start with more.

When was it "80% more functional"? At the time of Noah's flood? At the time of Creation?

 

[pitabread]

. If the genome is now, let’s use 80% non-functional due to mutational errors, then it was once 80% more functional. Simple math.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

 

[tas8831]

The link you both posted had zero to do with the subject matter at hand (hence deflection)

????


So let me get this straight - I START a thread using a cladogram that had been posted FOR YOU on another forum, which YOU "interpreted" thusly:


"....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on..."


and ask for interpretations of it, you respond with some totally irrelevant science-bashing, but I am the one that 'deflected'??

Amazing...

also I never said "a bone received parasympathetic stimulation" but thanks for misrepresenting.

"because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."


You should take a class on basic English grammar, for as written, it sure looks like you are referring to the coccyx.

Or was your word salad just a version of the Gish Gallop, and you knew that it had nothing to do with thew coccyx?

Not that it matters - your word salad was bogus and wrong on so many levels, and you still cannot bring yourself to admit it.

A plexus is not a ganglion.
The coccyx has ZERO to do with 'connecting' the coccygeal or sciatic nerves to anything.
The ganglion impar - which by the way exists whether the coccyx is there or not - is a SYMPATHETIC ganglion, and thus cannot receive parasympathetic stimulation (duh).
And by the way - sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous systems do not convey sensation.
And the direction of impulse transmission in a neuron is dendrite-cell body-axon, not the other way.

Now back to the topic at hand. Which Understanding Evolution "assumption(s)" do you hold to be established facts?

So, you just realized that the Understanding Evolution site does NOT support your interpretation after all, and are dodging.

Got it.

Now back to the ACTUAL topic at hand - Do you still think that cladograms show one extant taxon giving rise to another as you claimed on debatingchristianity?


Stop dodging and answer.