Branching Trees - A question for evolutionists

[lifepsyop]

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

A phylogenetic tree is simply the idea of branches of taxa. You need not impose the religion of Evolution onto it, but you can if you want.

By the same token you might say that this lichtenberg figure is a "genealogy" of a high-voltage burning pattern on wood.

 

[Speedwell]

A phylogenetic tree is simply the idea of branches of taxa. You need not impose the religion of Evolution onto it, but you can if you want.

What's your explanation for how the "tree" was formed?

 

[lifepsyop]

(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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming all life arose via biological generations (evolution), which is the thing being debated.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

You simply reinforce the perception that you do not understand. It is far better to admit you don't understand and seek education than to double down on the error.

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.

Do you see how you demonstrate some predictions of evolution? Take a step back and consider:

Biblical creation predicts living things to be grouped in poorly defined "kinds", with no need for any connection between those groups. It does not explain, or even agree with, the tree we see.

ToE explains where the variety of life comes from and how it is all connected. The tree metaphor was only developed after ToE (the metaphor first appears in Darwin's On the Origin of Species), ToE was not imposed onto an existing metaphor.

 

[Nithavela]

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?

That's a new one.

Unimpressive, but new.

 

[Speedwell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming all life arose via biological generations (evolution), which is the thing being debated.

It's a reasonable conclusion from the evidence available and since no alternate explanation which fits the evidence is on offer, the debate is over.

 

[lifepsyop]

What's your explanation for how the "tree" was formed?

I think it has something to do with the way in which God's immaterial laws of nature transmit into the material world. For whatever reason it commonly manifests in a branching tree-like pattern or image... perhaps this is only a simpler pattern of 'form and divide' repeated over and over.

The very first life God created (Genesis: Day 3) was plants and trees, and maybe that's a clue to the over-arching image he was going to use as a template for all of life. Life, then would be a tree of conceptual images of different creature types (or "kinds")
Perhaps this is a clue in Genesis 1:11 "....and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...."
You can see the image of a tree and each piece of "fruit" represents another "kind" of animal....

For example, all bird kinds are drawn from a branching hierarchy of varying bird concepts, themselves each descending from a composite bird 'super-type' that represents the main tree trunk...

It's basically just a nested hierarchy of images/concepts/designs/information/words... whatever descriptor you want to use for the immaterial Word of God that governs the material.

This might actually fit the physical evidence a lot better. In Evolution tree-of-life diagrams, the deeper common ancestral nodes and branches are always purely imaginary (and not represented by actual fossil data) ... with the real creatures always only existing on the tips of the branches. Life probably only ever existed in physical form somewhere roughly around the Family taxon...

But all this is only speculation....

 

[Speedwell]

I think it has something to do with the way in which God's immaterial laws of nature transmit into the material world. For whatever reason it commonly manifests in a branching tree-like pattern or image... perhaps this is only a simpler pattern of 'form and divide' repeated over and over.

The very first life God created (Genesis: Day 3) was plants and trees, and maybe that's a clue to the over-arching image he was going to use as a template for all of life. Life, then would be a tree of conceptual images of different creature types (or "kinds")
Perhaps this is a clue in Genesis 1:11 "....and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...."
You can see the image of a tree and each piece of "fruit" represents another "kind" of animal....

For example, all bird kinds are drawn from a branching hierarchy of varying bird concepts, themselves each descending from a composite bird 'super-type' that represents the main tree trunk...

It's basically just a nested hierarchy of images/concepts/designs/information/words... whatever descriptor you want to use for the immaterial Word of God that governs the material.

This might actually fit the physical evidence a lot better. In Evolution tree-of-life diagrams, the deeper common ancestral nodes and branches are always purely imaginary (and not represented by actual fossil data) ... with the real creatures always only existing on the tips of the branches. Life probably only ever existed in physical form somewhere roughly around the Family taxon...

But all this is only speculation....

So in your scenario evolution takes place, but originating with a number of ancestral "kinds" rather than a single common ancestor.

 

[lifepsyop]

So in your scenario evolution takes place, but originating with a number of ancestral "kinds" rather than a single common ancestor.

the word 'evolution' is an irreperably flawed term as it's firmly attached to the religious belief in universal common ancestry... lifeforms merely adapt to fluctuating environments, in more of a cyclic pattern than any kind of mystical evolutionary trajectory. A lifeform's genetic program usually consists of several different potential phenotypes that can be loaded from environmental triggers.

The Darwinian view of the world has always been silly and superstitious, the belief that blind and stumbling natural processes can somehow organize the genetic program for a fish into the program for a human.... that death and decay can build cathedrals out of the dust of the earth

 

[Ophiolite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming all life arose via biological generations (evolution), which is the thing being debated.

I'll be happy to address that once you have addressed my earlier request. In what way are the "tree of life" and an actual tree similar?

 

[Speedwell]

the word 'evolution' is an irreperably flawed term as it's firmly attached to the religious belief in universal common ancestry... lifeforms merely adapt to fluctuating environments, in more of a cyclic pattern than any kind of mystical evolutionary trajectory. A lifeform's genetic program usually consists of several different potential phenotypes that can be loaded from environmental triggers.

The Darwinian view of the world has always been silly and superstitious, the belief that blind and stumbling natural processes can somehow organize the genetic program for a fish into the program for a human.... that death and decay can build cathedrals out of the dust of the earth

But you are not being very clear about the process which led from the original "kinds" to the present biosphere.

 

[SLP]

A phylogenetic tree is simply the idea of branches of taxa.

Um, no - it is a graphic representation.

You need not impose the religion of Evolution onto it, but you can if you want.

When a creationist refers to evolution as a religion, one can be sure of a couple of things -
1. the creationist can offer nothing in support of creation
2. the creationist feels that he must denigrate the superior view of science such that it can be seen as on par with what he believes based on mysticism, i.e., at a lower-level of veracity.

By the same token you might say that this lichtenberg figure is a "genealogy" of a high-voltage burning pattern on wood.

Why would a rational person say that? I would say that such things indicate the patterns that electrical currents travel in wood based on imperfections in the wood grain, moisture content, etc. That is, I would look at it like an educated person, one with some general knowledge of physics and such. But I can see how creationists would want to make some sort of conflation/connection - they do tend to do so in their 'everything-AND-the-kitchen-sink' types of attacks on what they fear.

 

[SLP]

But you are not being very clear about the process which led from the original "kinds" to the present biosphere.

Very simple - the creationist relies WAY more on 'happy genetic accidents' than any version or formulation of evolution does. They just don't like to admit it.
That or they confabulate some evidence-free mechanisms that, in a just-so way, works!

 

[SLP]

the word 'evolution' is an irreperably flawed term as it's firmly attached to the religious belief in universal common ancestry... lifeforms merely adapt to fluctuating environments, in more of a cyclic pattern than any kind of mystical evolutionary trajectory. A lifeform's genetic program usually consists of several different potential phenotypes that can be loaded from environmental triggers.

The Darwinian view of the world has always been silly and superstitious, the belief that blind and stumbling natural processes can somehow organize the genetic program for a fish into the program for a human.... that death and decay can build cathedrals out of the dust of the earth

You've certainly got all the silly buzzwords and projection down, that much is obvious.

But I don't see anything to convince a skeptic. I see overconfident (i.e., Dunning-Kruger effect-like) assertions, but I see no evidence or rationale for those assertions., as is the norm in the silly superstition that is creationism.

1. Show us your evidence for this "genetic program." And do not say "genome" unless you are prepared to show at least SOME of the genomic evidence for a "program" consisting of "several different potential phenotypes that can be loaded from environmental triggers".
And while you are at it, perhaps you can lay out the evidence for the mechanism by which these hidden phenotypes are kept hidden until they are needed by these mysterious "environmental triggers", and how they are realized once these 'triggers' are manifest.

2. Show us where in any evolutionary scenario anyone has ever posited that the "genetic program" for a fish can be "organized" into one for a human. "Organized" implies that all of the genetic material necessary for a human is already present in the genome of a fish. I should think that even a creationist could see how short-sighted an empty assertion that one is, but then again....

I anticipate little more than some variation on evolution being called a religion some more, accompanied by some additional empty assertions, but one never knows.

 

[SLP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming all life arose via biological generations (evolution), which is the thing being debated.

And you assume all life was created by a magical creature, which is the other side of what is being 'debated.' Odd that you are content to simply attack the other side, as opposed to presenting evidence supporting your position.

 

[lifepsyop]

But you are not being very clear about the process which led from the original "kinds" to the present biosphere.

Actually I described it in detail. Different kinds of life exhibit phenotypic plasticity, in that the genetic expression is altered in response to different environmental triggers.

For example, a lizard species that changes its diet from bugs to plants will gradually change their expression in shape of the skull and teeth and even the shape of the stomach, this change also happens rapidly. There are countless other examples. The Galapagos finches, always lauded as a symbol of Darwinism, are found to move rapidly within these phenotypic cycles, in response to seasonal changes. They are not slowly evolving along some evolutionary trajectory away from finches as was originally fantasized.

Mutations virtually always just make something worse and more degraded over time. At best they usually just offer cosmetic changes, like a simple shift in body color. That's why textbooks love to talk about the colors of beetles and moths, and then jump to the ridiculous conclusion that the beetle and moth themselves were entirely created by the same process. Such reasoning would be laughed at the world over if not for Evolution being the only narrative offering a place for people to doubt God, particularly the God of the Bible.

The only thing natural selection really does is filter out unhealthy mutants. You don't build new animals by culling unfit ones. The mystical Darwinian belief in natural selection as a grand intricate animal-designer is absurd.

 

[Aman777]

Biblical creation predicts living things to be grouped in poorly defined "kinds", with no need for any connection between those groups. It does not explain, or even agree with, the tree we see.

Correction: Biblical creation correctly shows the connection between the kinds. It's easy since there are only TWO kinds, His and Theirs. His refers to the temporal creatures which Lord God/Jesus made with His own Hands. Since they were formed from the ground, which was contaminated with darkness or DEATH after God made them APART from Himself in the beginning. Genesis 1:2 Anything apart from God is doomed to death. Luk 18:19

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? none is good, save One, that is, God.

ToE explains where the variety of life comes from and how it is all connected. The tree metaphor was only developed after ToE (the metaphor first appears in Darwin's On the Origin of Species), ToE was not imposed onto an existing metaphor.

Not so, since it is incomplete because it is "willingly ignorant" 2Pe 3:5 that Humans began on the world/heaven that THEN WAS, which was totally destroyed by the flood. 2 Peter 3:6 This FACT refutes the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

The only thing natural selection really does is filter out unhealthy mutants. You don't build new animals by culling unfit ones. The mystical Darwinian belief in natural selection as a grand intricate animal-designer is absurd.

What natural selection does is filter out the less fit of a range of variants presented to the environment with each new generation. Mutation is a cause of that variation, but not the only one; your notion of the relationship between mutations and the phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts seems highly oversimplified.

 

[Speedwell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming all life arose via biological generations (evolution), which is the thing being debated.

Are you sure that is what is being debated? Or are you really trying to defend your interpretation of Genesis by turning the debate into a contest between theism and atheism?

 

[Aman777]

What natural selection does is filter out the less fit of a range of variants presented to the environment with each new generation. Mutation is a cause of that variation, but not the only one; your notion of the relationship between mutations and the phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts seems highly oversimplified.

Scientifically untrue since Human intelligence does NOT evolve, no matter how much time, nor how many mutations and natural selection changes it. Science teaches that we came from TWO parents and not from mindless Nature. One is either born Human (descendant of Adam) or NOT. Amen?