Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

Justatruthseeker said:

Yes it is. It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation.......

Click to expand...

You have no clue regarding any of this.

I get that you have no biology background - it shows - but this incessant display of an inability to learn from repeated correction is truly a wonder, and add to that your unyielding refusal to even try to understand the terminology and concepts behind the very issues that you pretend to understand makes it almost painful to have to try to correct your constant errors and misinterpretations.


How on earth you got that I think that "copy errors" are not "continuous variation" is a great example - that is, as the old saying goes, not even wrong.

Continuous variation refers to TRAITS, not genome loci. "Copy errors" are irrelevant to this issue, and had you even once taken freshman biology, you might understand this.

I know that "copy errors" have nothing to do with continuous variation in the context that you keep bringing it up for - Darwin's Finches - and your fantasy that you, a computer graphics tech of some kind, has DISPROVEN evolution! by showing that hybridization in the short term is faster than accumulating mutations in altering continuous variation of phenotypic traits like beak and body size.

But you are 100% unwilling, unable, or incompetent to grasp that those different alleles for things like beak and body size came from somewhere, and that somewhere is via mutation of existing alleles.

That they then claim it is the record of continuous variation that allows them to trace lineage.

Click to expand...

I have certainly never done this, since that makes sense only to people that are spectacularly ignorant of genetics and, I presume, phylogenetics.

That you are conflating, I guess - it is hard to tell with your stream of consciousness ramblings - mutations with "continuous variation" is emblematic of your inability to grasp these basic genetics/biology concepts.

Asimov had people like you pegged in 1980:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Pontification to the extreme........ and might we add hypocritical and contradictory as well....

Click to expand...

A few years ago, I went to a rugby game. One team scored a try, and a little kid, probably 6 or so, yelled "Touchdown!" The kid's father said 'In rugby, that is called a try'. The kid looked at him, perplexed, and said "No, TOUCHDOWN!"

You remind me of that kid.

Apologies again for the dead thread resurrection - but as I was searching for previous mentions of the Grant paper that justa keeps referring to (for reasons I cannot fathom), this thread popped up. In reading through it, I was struck at the level of intellectual dishonesty exhibited by the creationists, and the extent of the mental gymnastics that they engage in, Trump-like, to rescue their egos (and via extension, their beliefs). This exposure of pshun2404's antic of keyword-search-mongering really stuck out as egregious...

tas8831 said:

I will only acknowledge the extent to which you ignored most of the post that document the many and substantive shortcomings, errors, and inconsistencies in the creationist's post.

Tell me - how many keyword searches did you have to perform to find that 2003 essay on morphology-based cladistic analysis of Homo when I was specifically writing about molecular analyses?

You didn't read past the title, did you?


"The evolutionary trend of human encephalisation, apparently isometric with body size, and concurrent reduction in the gut and masticatory apparatus, suggests continuous cladistic characters are biased by problems of body size.

The method suffers a logical weakness, or circularity, leading to bias when characters with multiple states are used. Coding of such characters can only be done using prior criteria, and this is usually done using an existing phylogenetic scheme. Another problem with coding character states is the handling of variation within species. While this form of variation is usually ignored by palaeoanthropologists, when characters are recognised as varying, their treatment as a separate state adds considerable error to cladograms."

next sentence:

"The genetic proximity of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas has important implications for cladistic analyses. It is argued that chimpanzees and gorillas should be treated as ingroup taxa and an alternative outgroup such as orangutans should be used, or an (hypothetical) ancestral body plan developed. Making chimpanzees and gorillas ingroup taxa would considerably enhance the biological utility of anthropological cladograms."



You are amazingly transparent and shallow.

Click to expand...

Justatruthseeker said:

Yes it is. It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation.......

That they then claim it is the record of continuous variation that allows them to trace lineage.

Pontification to the extreme........ and might we add hypocritical and contradictory as well....

Click to expand...

Sometimes, you just have to laugh at the arrogance of ignorance.

What was it Bertrand Russell wrote - something like 'the problem with the world is that the ignorant are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure and the intelligent are full of doubt'...

pshun2404 said:

"Sometimes, you just have to laugh at the arrogance of ignorance...Bertrand Russell wrote - something like 'the problem with the world is that the ignorant are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure and the intelligent are full of doubt'.

And you are obviously [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure that you are correct (and have no doubt), so thanks for clarifying that point Tas.

Click to expand...

Weird - so you think MY confidence, supported by published science, is the result of ignorance while your naive pontifications, easily and frequently debunked, supported only by your religious zeal and your documented plagiarism and doctoring of quotes, are due to your intelligence?

What a LAUGH! Clueless, Paul... But cute how you insert yourself in all manner of internet 'science question' sites like Quora, where you offer up your pap and nonsense as if your self-education means something...

By your definition they who express doubt in the opinion of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure are actually the intelligent ones. It is the source of true critical thinking. So thanks again!

Click to expand...

Given the fact that you do not know how to interpret cladograms despite your claimed 30 years of "study" of the subject, I think you just have a very hard time accepting that you are not as clever or informed as you think you are.

This says it all -

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

CLUELESS yet [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-SURE...

Also weird - you keep running away from this:

If I am bored one day, maybe I will comment on all of those TOPIX and QUORA 'answers' you have provided, asking why you misrepresent published science to prop up your religion...

pshun2404 said:

.I love your arrogance the best when you quote yourself as the authority

Click to expand...

Then surely you can show where I did this?
Of course, in the sciences, and in this subject in particular, unlike you, I DO have multiple publications, so at least I have 'walked the walk', whereas little folks like you just collect archives of 'juicy quotes' from publications that you only pretend to understand, then whine when your errors and lies are called out. And interestingly, even in the subject I have published on, I do not consider myself an 'expert' or authority' - that is another difference between people like me and people like you.

So sad... So... creationist...

and do not allow critical thought or reasonable questions

Click to expand...

I've seen neither critical thought nor questions from you, only assertions bolstered by keyword-searched and often out of context archives.

when it/they question that which you are [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure of. I guess I really hit a nerve when I applied YOUR standard to you.

Click to expand...

Oh Pauly, you are really desperate now...

why did you totally misrepresent this paper:

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.

I mean, it indicates nearly the OPPOSITE of what you claimed. Did you think nobody would look it up?

Why do creationists like you pretend to know more than you really do? Why do you lie by doctoring quotes and taking quotes out of context? Is that what they teach you in your church? Is that part of your brainwashing fantasies?

Check it out -

Creationist mendacity

poster boy for creationist dishonesty.

You must be so proud of yourself - can't even understand why I started this thread.

"I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?"

Why can creationists not admit to even the trivial errors they make? And why do creationists like you embellish your credentials and pretend to have so much great 'insight' into things that you clearly do not understand? I am trying to understand the psychopathology that we see in so many professional and internet creationists.

pshun2404 said:

Two points and then I am out, because I will not fall for your so typical ploy to incite.

Click to expand...

Asking you to explain your demonstrated dishonesty is a ploy to incite?

Funny.

This Cladogram (as opposed to others which DIFFER)

Click to expand...

How does it differ? What do you mean? Oh, right - you are running off as usual.

showing a divergence of chimp and human appox. 6mya CLEARLY shows a divergence (implied in the image) from GORILLA previously diverging from Orangutan (follow the lines). YOU ASKED for people's interpretation of THIS CLADOGRAM (which I gave clearly understanding the opinion or interpretation via the "narrative" commonly attached).

Click to expand...

So thanks for clarifying that you have a rather shallow understanding of a topic you have boasted about studying for 30 years.

That is NOT what a cladogram indicates, at all.

Here you go, fella - a nice concise overview for how the truly informed can interpret these pesky cladograms:

Interpreting Cladograms

It is from 2002, or thereabouts, so it has been around long enough that you could have come acrss it years ago in your in-depth study of the subject.

Secondly out of the many articles and opinions of others I posted, you finding ONE (which I do not share your opinion on) and battering it over and over (as if that justifies your opinion of my person or intelligence level but really only shows the bias and prejudice of your mentality (though you are an intelligent person).

Click to expand...

Reading through you wall-o-quotes (obvious attempt to avoid having to admit that you are clueless), all I saw was desperation. I DON'T CARE that you do not share my opinion on these matters since you have proven over and over that you are completely incompetent when it comes to these issues. You apparently spent more time learning how to obfuscate and dodge in your 30 years of study than you did learning the material.

Now, are you going to explain why - even after having your dishonesty exposed - you keep referring to the Stern and Susman paper?

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.

I mean, it indicates nearly the OPPOSITE of what you claimed. Did you think nobody would look it up?

By the way - the "quote" you provide from p. 280 of the paper does not appear on p. 280 of the paper. It appears in the abstract on the previous page.

" “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). "



Keep it up, Pauly - you do our side a great service.


Oh - actually one more thing - I think I caught you plagiarizing again. Your Stern and Susman quote? The one that does not actually appear where you claim it does? Yeah, found that here:

"Not only have Lucy's wrists and arm-bones been called into question, but there also is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates this fossil was better adapted for swinging through trees, like modern-day chimps. After thoroughly examining A. afarensis fossils, Stern and Susman noted: "It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees" (1983, 60:280). They went on to comment: "The AL 333-91 [designation for specific A. afarensis fossil - BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand - BH/BT] is 'elongate and rod shaped' and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys" (60:281). Stern and Susmanís research details the fact that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are void of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet."

You had written:

""Stern and Susman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983) remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”."

I'm thinking it pretty unlikely that 2 different creationists reading the same source would come up with the exact same misquote..

How about you?

pshun2404 said:

omit sad attempts at face saving

Click to expand...

So you do not understand how to interpret cladograms, but pretend you do. And not only that - but that people that actually DO understand are the ones in error. Because you searched Wiki essays for words like "assumption" because that means that it is all guesses and man-made.

Typical desperate creationist stuff.

And I note that you are now just ignoring getting caught yet again plagiarizing creationist disinformation hacks, this time, Harrub and Thompson.

I'm sorry that you feel that you must use bombastic egotism, out of context quotes, plagiarism, and mock indignation to prop up your sad belief system, but I am tired of people like you and your sick tactics. Off to Quora and Topix I go...

And I forgot - you are yet another creationist that likes to whine behind accusations of ad hominem, apparently now understanding what an ad hominem is.

It is relevant, and therefore NOT ad hominem, that you plagiarize and use out of context quotes. Such dishonesty and clear attempts to engage in fallacious argumentation undermine not just your 'arguments', but your credibility.

Sorry - life is tough, sometimes.

pshun2404 said:

From whence did you dig up that alleged quote (omit sad attempts at face saving) and what was the actual overall context you are purposely ignoring?

Click to expand...

No idea what you are yammering on about, but as usual, you are just trying to cover your tracks.

Pathetic, as usual.

Gene2meme exposed your dishonest quote mining of Stern and Susman YEARS ago, but you kept running with it. Can't let a good lie die in creationland, I guess. Then, well, it wasn't really YOUR direct dishonesty, was it? It was Harrub and pal, since you just copied their erroneous and out of context quote and ran with it.

Creationist birds of a lying feather and all that...

In honor of the 1 year-ish anniversary of the exposure of the true level of 'study' the typical creationist engages in before googling for wiki entries they can paraphrase or quote in order to proclaim themselves 'expert'...

tas8831 said:

Hilarious - I should have known that we would get unnecessarily verbose, quote-laden dodging from the local coccyx expert.

You see - I chose that cladogram for a reason:

"I do appreciate what cladistics has to offer (far more likely than older taxonomic methods nased mostly on homology) but look at your tree....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on...do you agree?"​

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Click to expand...

Justatruthseeker said:

It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation.......

That they then claim it is the record of continuous variation that allows them to trace lineage.

Click to expand...

I mean, wow...

I never get tired of reading this kind of thing - these folks are so delusional and self-absorbed that they do not see how 100% laughably wrong and silly they are.

This one, despite pontificating on these subjects for about a decade, I guess, still does not grasp even basic concepts. Like Continuous variation... He actually thinks continuous variation describes the constant accumulation of mutation... Amazing.