Please note that right off the bat, pshun refused to actually interpret the cladogram as requested in the OP...
It is a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor). The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one).
The errors pile up already.
First - can the 'man-made' and 'intelligently designed' schtick.
It is silly, it is desperate, it is inflammatory - especially since you seem totally OK with accepting a
man-made series of ancient stories with little to no corroboration
intelligently designed to keep the masses in their place and accept their lot in life.
Beyond that -
"It is a man-made chart"
Actually, it is computer generated in most cases.
" meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor"
al·leged
əˈlejd/Submit
adjective
(of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
A cladogram represents the outcome of an analytical process. That outcome supports, or does not, hypotheses of descent/relation. Thus, by definition, it does not represent anything "alleged."
A cladogram from a creation science paper from
AiG:
all just assumptions, right? The Christian creationist baraminologists are all just showing 'a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor). The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one)', and can thus be ignored, right?
"and attempts to display (in very creative fashion)"
Displays in a rather straightforward fashion. The shape of the cladogram is irrelevant.
" how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor)."
More evidence that you simply do not know how cladograms are made.
Do you use a calculator? A computer program? Are you aware that a calculator or computer program 'spits out' what is put into it? Just like phylogeny and tree-drawing algorithms. You input the data, you run an analysis, and the program gives you a tree. If there is insufficient data to provide any resolution, you get something like this:
Note the part that looks like a comb? Insufficient data. But no 'artist' plays a role.
"The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one)."
False - the lines are produced by the program.
You do not understand how cladograms are made OR how to interpret them, yet have no problem criticizing them.
One paragraph of yours, and every line had an error in it.
This is going to take a while.
And just to get it out of the way, the legitimate interpretation is the following:
Each node represents a 'split' between lineages. For example, the lineage leading to extant and extinct tree shrews split from the lineage leading to lemurs and other primates first; the lineage leading to lemurs then split from the group leading to extant (and extinct) Tarsiers and other primates, etc. When we get up to the human question, no, it does NOT indicate that humans, chimps and gorillas evolved from orangutans and so on - that is a naive, uninformed interpretation. What is DOES indicate is that orangs split from the group leading to gorillas, chimps and humans, then the gorillas split, etc.
It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees.
What is that supposed to even mean?
Cladograms represent the branching arrangements of the taxa for which data were input into the program.
Not all analyses use the exact same taxa.
I have explained on this forum before how such thinking made a fool out of Walt Brown - who had one time boasted that his teenage son had shown how silly phylogenetics was by pointing out that one paper had human more closely related to rattlesnakes than to chimps, therefore, creationists can dismiss phylogenetics.
Problem was that the paper in question did not use chimp data at all - in fact, the reason human grouped with rattlesnake was because they were the most closely related vertebrates in that particular study.
So it helps to understand how this stuff works BEFORE pontificating about it.
It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes [sic] and so on shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.
And another act of inexplicable dishonesty. Or something. I don't understand how someone could write something so clearly false and think that nobody will remember what has been going on for the last several months (and I will not even mention how pshun was DEMOLISHED on that other forum for making similar claims a couple of years ago).
Conjecture? 'Means lineal'? And yes I know that you were one of several that dismissed this by claiming the mice were still mice - not sure if that was a simple act of diversion, or if you just wanted to make an intellectual martyr of yourself for your cause, but I would expect even a lab tech with 3 decades of experience to understand the implications of these studies, religious fanatic or not:
Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns or shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
In cladograms the common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population.
Wow.
Again - what does that even mean?
A 'changing' member of a population... I truly have no idea what you mean. Bafflegab to impress the rubes maybe?
In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.
Oh, so you are back on the 'shape' of the cladogram meaning something. That it doesn't.
OK... Look... A common analysis package that I have used is called PAUP (phylogenetic analysis using parsiomony). There are several options as to how that program will present analytical outputs. You can choose rooted or unrooted trees. You can choose phylogram or cladogram (phylogram tree branches are proportional in length to the genetic distance branch length). You can choose circle tree. You can choose square tree (and choose whether to order it on left or right). And so on.
The point is - and this is something you clearly do not grasp - that the appearance of the tree is IRRELEVANT. It can be a circle. It can be wedge-shaped. It can be squarish. IT DOESN'T MATTER. You are making a big deal out of the way the tree looks because, I suspect, you have nothing of merit to say about the actual content.
Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis from Thailand reckoned to be an ancestor of Orangutans allegedly existed about 10 – 13.6 mya. This was final confirmation of the long held belief that Apes (that became Gorillas and Orangutans) originated and came out of Asia. The split had previously been believed to have happened about 8 mya (the chimp human split occurring about 6 mya as this clade depicts). Only now we have found indications of Gorillas (Chororapithecus abyssinicus) in Africa from 10 – 12 mya (What?) and the whole house of cards comes falling down and now we even have to correct the textbooks (What? Not really uncommon) but sadly many generations are already brainwashed. Will they admit they were wr-wr-wrong? NO! But surely this clade is....
Citation?
Funny - when I use your favorite resource - wikipedia - we see that "The species lived about 10 million years ago and may have been the ancestor of modern orangutans."
When will you admit that you are wr-wr-wrong about any of the myriad things that have been proven on this forum alone?
Do you notice RANGES of dates? Why do you suppose ranges of dates are used?
And isn't it interesting - if new dates and new fossils and new evidence requires a re-examination of a long-held position, science will ADOPT the new evidence! What happens in your CULT, pshun2404?
Ken Ham already spoke for you and your kind - evidence DOESN'T MATTER to you! You have your tribal tales from a few thousand years ago and you will stick with them no matter what. And you - a science 'expert' with 3 decades of experience - find that more honorable?
And regarding brainwashing - you sure know all about that, don't you?
You ascribe to a belief in which practitioners threaten adherents with eternal suffering for not ascribing to the beliefs (or certain idiosyncratic interpretations of the source material), yet you want to call science brainwashing?
Give it a rest - your sad desperation is unbecoming.
But now a new artist will have to make a new one...who will this imprinting technique convince? Hmmm?
Artists do not make cladograms, propagandist.
Keep it up with your brainwashing techniques - they work on the weak-minded, as planned, but to those that actually understand the things you distort and divert from - it is just pathetic.
I will demolish your other dishonest rants later.
