Branching Trees - A question for evolutionists

[xianghua]

That's not how phylogenetic trees are constructed.

Sounds like the first step for you is to do some research and learn how phylogenetic trees are actually created. Once you do that then maybe we can finally discuss them properly.

Here's a site with the very basics to get you started: Reconstructing trees: A simple example

here is an example of what you are talking about (take a look at table 1):

Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? - creation.com

but again it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[pitabread]

here is an example of what you are talking about (take a look at table 1):

Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? - creation.com

but again it doesnt prove any evolution.

Are you ever going to come up with a list of characterists yourself? Or are you going to continue to avoid doing that? So far you've never tried to properly construct any sort of phylogenetic tree.

-----------------------------------------------------

As for that site, their list of characteristics is somewhat wrong because they don't account for that some of those traits are polymorphic. For example, not all automobiles have enclosed cabins (e.g. convertibles). Whereas some bicycles, tricycles, etc do. Bicycles may or may not have "horns" (most don't). The number of wheels they list may vary. And so on.

Some of the traits are also ill-defined (e.g. "thick tyres", "self stability", "interior partition", etc).

Constructing a proper data set would require some more rigorous scrubbing of the data. This is where it's arguably better to pick specific make/models of vehicles and derive characteristics from those rather than vague groups of vehicles (e.g. "automobiles").

It seems like they designed that characteristic data set solely for the purpose of deriving a specific outcome. Which is of course not how these things are typically created. But it's easy to do when one ignores the real data.