Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pshun2404" data-source="post: 72044588" data-attributes="member: 301030"><p>Sure! To being with, a cladogram (this being one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees. It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes and so on shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.</p><p></p><p>In cladograms the common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population. In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.</p><p></p><p><em>Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis</em> 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 (<em>Chororapithecus abyssinicus) </em>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....</p><p></p><p>As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one) though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts. Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it.</p><p></p><p>So this is saying all of these are <em>probably</em> related at these <em>possible</em> places in the <em>presupposed</em> genetic lineage. But now a new artist will have to make a new one...who will this imprinting technique convince? Hmmm?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pshun2404, post: 72044588, member: 301030"] Sure! To being with, a cladogram (this being one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion. 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). It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees. It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes and so on shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations. In cladograms the common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population. In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram. [I]Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis[/I] 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 ([I]Chororapithecus abyssinicus) [/I]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.... As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one) though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts. Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it. So this is saying all of these are [I]probably[/I] related at these [I]possible[/I] places in the [I]presupposed[/I] genetic lineage. But now a new artist will have to make a new one...who will this imprinting technique convince? Hmmm? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
Top
Bottom