Branching Trees - A question for evolutionists

[Occams Barber]

When we see other phenomena like biodiversity conforming to a branching pattern, there is no need to invoke Darwinian mysticism (fish gradually transforming into philosophizing humans via happy genetic accidents, etc.) to explain it.

Sentences like this make it fairly obvious that your understanding of evolution is limited. This puts you at a considerable disadvantage when arguing against the idea.

Can I seriously recommend that you spend a little time in learning, at least, the basics of evolution to lend a little more credibility to your arguments?

UCA Berkeley have an excellent on line version of Evolution 101 which I can recommend.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

This page setting out many of the misconceptions about evolution may also help.
Misconceptions about evolution

OB

 

[lifepsyop]

I do not know how to make it any clearer.

The pattern of a nested hierarchy that results from descent with modification from a common ancestor is not the same as any other pattern in nature. What is unclear about that?

You are confusing a real, natural tree with the very rough, inaccurate metaphor/analogy of a tree. That metaphor/analogy supposedly represents the aforementioned nested hierarchy yet there are almost no similarities between the metaphor and the real tree. What is unclear about that?

Your inability to grasp what I am saying appears to be related to your insistence upon seeing close parallels where none exists; of confusing superficial and incidental similarities with real relationships.

What is clear about anything you're saying?

"Actually, you see, the tree of life is NOTHING like a tree. We just call it a tree for no reason whatsoever. I'm not going to explain how it's not like a tree, of course. I'm just going to keep repeating that the tree of life is nothing like a tree."

I am genuinely interested in a counter-argument but you're saying nothing. I'm not going to respond again until you deliver some content to respond to.

 

[lifepsyop]

Sentences like this make it fairly obvious that your understanding of evolution is limited. This puts you at a considerable disadvantage when arguing against the idea.

Can I seriously recommend that you spend a little time in learning, at least, the basics of evolution to lend a little more credibility to your arguments?

UCA Berkeley have an excellent on line version of Evolution 101 which I can recommend.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

This page setting out many of the misconceptions about evolution may also help.
Misconceptions about evolution

OB

I'm pretty sure your naturalistic creation myth has little fishy things climbing onto land and eventually giving rise to people.

If I was wrong you would have simply corrected me. That's always the tell.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm pretty sure your naturalistic creation myth has little fishy things climbing onto land and eventually giving rise to people.

If I was wrong you would have simply corrected me. That's always the tell.

It was the "happy genetic accidents" which was the tell.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm pretty sure your naturalistic creation myth has little fishy things climbing onto land and eventually giving rise to people.

If I was wrong you would have simply corrected me. That's always the tell.

Sarcasm is not a substitute for argument. Try learning a little about evolution - you might be surprised.

As Speedwell has already pointed out, your 'tell' was "happy genetic accidents". This sort of terminology clearly shows that you're unfamiliar with the evolutionary process.
OB

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the point. The metaphor is used because trees "look like evolution"... that's why evolutionists always use the metaphor of a branching tree when portraying their evolutionary creation story.

So do you not find it interesting that "Evolution" happened to create so many living things that offer such a direct visual metaphor of itself?

Man looks for patterns and trys to match them to others. Why do you think that it is surprising that man found an analog for evolution? It is a metaphor, but not a perfect one. That is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sentences like this make it fairly obvious that your understanding of evolution is limited. This puts you at a considerable disadvantage when arguing against the idea.

Can I seriously recommend that you spend a little time in learning, at least, the basics of evolution to lend a little more credibility to your arguments?

UCA Berkeley have an excellent on line version of Evolution 101 which I can recommend.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

This page setting out many of the misconceptions about evolution may also help.
Misconceptions about evolution

OB

Creationists cannot afford to understand evolution. There is a term that creationists use for their fellow creationists that eventually understand evolution. They call them "evolutionists".

 

[Shemjaza]

Nobody would say that the branches of a lightning bolt "evolved" in any Darwinian sense... it is simply the type of pattern we find repeating throughout the physical world.

No one has said that the branches evolved, especially since they actually exist in the physical world... unlike the "tree" of life.

It's merely a representation. You don't seem to be able to distinguish this and it's a significant difference.

When we see other phenomena like biodiversity conforming to a branching pattern, there is no need to invoke Darwinian mysticism (fish gradually transforming into philosophizing humans via happy genetic accidents, etc.) to explain it.

But we do. It's the best explanation I've seen presented for the evidence.

When people selling AMWAY create a tree pattern that's not a miracle, it's just a consequence of

How the branch happens? I think you may as well ask, why do physical forces exist with particular properties? Why do we live in a universe with the physical parameters that make rivers and lightning possible the way they are?

No, that's incorrect. We know exactly why a river branches, it's due to the shape of the land... ditto for lightening, the paths of least resistance towards the Earth.

We don't need mysticism to explain how life diversifies... what is your explanation?

These patterns in some way reflect the language of the creation of the universe.

Poetic, but completely lacking in explanatory power.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It is often claimed that if God created living things, he did so in a way to look like Evolution, as if trying to trick people into believing all things had evolved from a universal common ancestor.

This is because, based on their anatomical and molecular characteristics, life can usually be arranged in the pattern of a branching tree... thus the phrase "tree of life". Evolutionists claim that this pattern is strong evidence for their model... with the suggestion that God could have created in such a way where living things resist being organized in such a branching pattern.

....branching trees.... branching trees....

Here is a question for evolutionists:

It seems surprising that evolutionary processes would produce such an abundance of life (plants and trees) that physically emulate the very branching pattern of evolutionary common ancestry.
Do you think that is a strange coincidence?
Were plants and trees created in Evolution's image?

2 things I love about this:

1. The complete lack of understanding of the use of metaphor. When you hear an expression like "the snow covered the ground like a blanket" do you think you can role the snow blanket up, take it home and use it on your bed?
2. You appear to be asking if it's a strange coincidence that the outcome of Evolution aligns with its predictions Can you think of any other instance where it would be considered a coincidence for events to happen exactly as they were expected to happen?

 

[SLP]

Sarcasm is not a substitute for argument. Try learning a little about evolution - you might be surprised.

As Speedwell has already pointed out, your 'tell' was "happy genetic accidents". This sort of terminology clearly shows that you're unfamiliar with the evolutionary process.
OB

The "tell" for me is when these types never actually argue FOR their creation myth, just attack their caricatures of evolution. If they had anything legitimate to offer in Genesis' defense, they would do so.

 

[Ophiolite]

What is clear about anything you're saying?

"Actually, you see, the tree of life is NOTHING like a tree. We just call it a tree for no reason whatsoever. I'm not going to explain how it's not like a tree, of course. I'm just going to keep repeating that the tree of life is nothing like a tree."

I am genuinely interested in a counter-argument but you're saying nothing. I'm not going to respond again until you deliver some content to respond to.

OK, then you tell me specifically why the two are similar.

(Remember to deal with the fact that the branching of biological generations is quite different from the branching of trees. A portion of a tree divides and then divides again and again. Biological generations continually divide then rejoin. It is a radically different pattern. The tree metaphor is a wholly inadequate one that has seriously mislead you, but it is not to late to get educated in the matter if you will try to examine what has been said in an open way.

 

[SLP]

No one has said that the branches evolved, especially since they actually exist in the physical world... unlike the "tree" of life.

It's merely a representation. You don't seem to be able to distinguish this and it's a significant difference.


But we do. It's the best explanation I've seen presented for the evidence.

When people selling AMWAY create a tree pattern that's not a miracle, it's just a consequence of



No, that's incorrect. We know exactly why a river branches, it's due to the shape of the land... ditto for lightening, the paths of least resistance towards the Earth.

We don't need mysticism to explain how life diversifies... what is your explanation?


Poetic, but completely lacking in explanatory power.

Another "tell" - the inability/unwillingness to depart from talking points, no matter how contorted or nonsensical their pleas must become.

 

[lifepsyop]

As Speedwell has already pointed out, your 'tell' was "happy genetic accidents". This sort of terminology clearly shows that you're unfamiliar with the evolutionary process.
OB

I'm sorry, has neo-Darwinism already collapsed and been replaced with something else? I'm pretty sure you guys believe all of life generally arose via random mutations that happened to confer increased fitness on an individual.

Happy genetic accidents is an accurate description of random mutations + natural selection.

Once again, you couldn't correct me because you know I'm not wrong. Maybe you just don't like hearing what you really believe?

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sorry, has neo-Darwinism already collapsed and been replaced with something else? I'm pretty sure you guys believe all of life generally arose via random mutations that happened to confer increased fitness on an individual.

Happy genetic accidents is an accurate description of random mutations + natural selection.

No, it is not an accurate description. It is either an ignorant statement or just your way of being snotty about it.

Once again, you couldn't correct me because you know I'm not wrong. Maybe you just don't like hearing what you really believe?

Life diversifies by way of randomly distributed variation acted on by natural selection. Mutations play a role in creating that variation but are not the sole cause of it.

 

[lifepsyop]

2 things I love about this:

1. The complete lack of understanding of the use of metaphor. When you hear an expression like "the snow covered the ground like a blanket" do you think you can role the snow blanket up, take it home and use it on your bed?

This is amusing.
And why isn't the use of your bedding a metaphor for the way the snow covers the ground?
Do you believe there's a "true" blanket in the world and all others are only metaphorical references?

A blanket is only the idea or concept of a covering.

2. You appear to be asking if it's a strange coincidence that the outcome of Evolution aligns with its predictions Can you think of any other instance where it would be considered a coincidence for events to happen exactly as they were expected to happen?

What predictions? Evolution doesn't really predict anything other than that similar creatures are similar. There will be more similarity between a horse and another horse than a horse and a dog. There will be more similarity between two mammals than a mammal and a frog, and so forth.

 

[SLP]

Here is the Abstract for a creation science paper re: Post-Flood diversification of Kinds:

"Transposition of genetic material is proposed as a solution to the problem of rapid post-Flood diversification of baramins. Mobile genetic elements (herein called Altruistic Genetic Elements, AGEs) fulfill three criteria for explaining post-Flood diversification: 1) they permanently alter the genome, 2) their alterations can be gene-specific and beneficial, and 3) their beneficial activity was concentrated in the past. Thirteen biological phenomena are discussed in conjunction with evolution, creationist theories of diversification, and the AGEing hypothesis. All thirteen can potentially be explained under the AGEing mode, whereas only seven are explained by evolution and only one (intrabaraminic hybridization) is explained by previous creationist theories."​

I guess "happy genetic accidents" are OK for creationists.

 

[lifepsyop]

Life diversifies by way of randomly distributed variation acted on by natural selection. Mutations play a role in creating that variation but are not the sole cause of it.

read carefully what I said..... happy genetic accidents.... see the word "happy" ?

Happy = yay, good, positive,helpful,beneficial
Genetic Accident = random mutation

Happy Genetic Accidents = mutations that confer a fitness advantage, i.e. natural selection

Again, maybe you just don't like hearing what you believe?

Let me know if you need anymore help with this.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, that's incorrect. We know exactly why a river branches, it's due to the shape of the land... ditto for lightening, the paths of least resistance towards the Earth.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself there. Why are there physical forces to begin with that make rivers possible?

 

[Speedwell]

read carefully what I said..... happy genetic accidents.... see the word "happy" ?

Happy = yay, good, positive,helpful,beneficial
Genetic Accident = random mutation

Happy Genetic Accidents = mutations that confer a fitness advantage...

Don't you mean variations which confer a fitness advantage? Mutations contribute to variation but are not the sole cause of it

.i.e. natural selection

"i.e," is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase id est which means "in other words." So in plain English, what you wrote was "...mutations which confer a fitness advantage in other words natural selection. Are you sure that is what you meant? Do you really believe that beneficial mutations are the same as natural selection?

 

[SLP]

A blanket is only the idea or concept of a covering.

And a phylogenetic tree is only the idea or concept of the "genealogy" of taxa.