Now THAT is funny. Evolutionists need to move stuff around the phylogeny tree so often I hear they're going to start using colorforms to produce the charts. I hear the kit comes with 50 or so species, 100,000 blanks and LOTS of dotted lines.
Strangely, I'm unable to find any 'moving stuff around so often' over the past... 80 years?
Horse evolution was updated because it was too simplistic, whale evolution is now much more detailed, and humans are still closest to chimps. Birds are still more related to crocodiles than snakes are *wink wink*.
While revision only makes such models more accurate as ever more data is gathered, phylogenies derived from independent data statistically match so well that I, for one, am very impressed. Oh yes, one can place an orangutan as splitting off from the common ancestor a bit earlier than expected; but seriously, does that warrant your ludicrous implication that they're not very well supported?
Care to provide a reference as opposed to making stuff up and looking silly?
Ah yes--comparative anatomy told us whales were related to ungulates many, many years ago by analyzing morphology, skeletal structure and vestigial organs (rudimentary pelvic and leg bones on a whale--that makes perfect design sense).
Developmental biology seemed to confirm it, with Baleen embryos possessing teeth (like their ancestors were supposed to possess) that later became reabsorbed before birth.
Then DNA sequencing confirmed it again. Then transitional fossils sharing characteristics of whales and ungulates, in increasingly whale-like order, were found.
Once again, do you have anything useful to add to the conversation, or are you, like many others here, an immature atheist trolling the forum to make Christians purposefully look like science-fearing relics from the Dark Ages?
If De Grasse's quote wasn't taken out of context, as usual, he was demonstrably, flat out wrong. We do indeed have various ways of testing hypotheses on the origin of body plans, phylums and other things. It's called making testable predictions
DNA analysis of homeobox genes holds one key to confirming or disproving a hypothesis (if a gene coding for a leg is used for another organ elsewhere, matching what the 'conjecture' predicts, draw your own conclusions). Comparative anatomy is another. Molecular sequencing is another. Predicting transitional fossils (like insects using modified gill pads for wings) is yet another. There are probably other ways of testing this so called 'conjecture', but I'll let the professional biologists here answer that, as well as provide the context to that quote that will once again make you look ridiculous.
