Illusions of Phylogeny

[lifepsyop]

The goal of this thread is to help pull back the curtain a little bit on the language and imagery used to sell the illusion of phylogeny to the public.

Phylogeny refers to the supposed evolutionary relationships among all living things.


NESTED GROUPS / HIERARCHIES:

This is a method of creating "Groups" and disguising them as ancestral lineages in order to pretend that they say something about the origins of certain types of organisms.

For example, in the image below from TalkOrigins:

We can say that an ancestral lineage of Vertebrates gave rise to a lineage of animals with Jaws, which gave rise to a lineage with Digits, which grave rise to the lineage of Amniotes, which gave rise to the lineage of animals with Hair and Endothermy, which gave rise to the lineage with a Placenta, which ultimately gave rise to the lineage of Humans.

It seems I have said a great deal about the Human's evolutionary past. But in fact, all I have done is given a self-fulfilling definition of how a Human is defined and classified. A Human is an endothermic placental with hair, classified as an amniote, with digits, jaws, and vertebrae. A Human is all of these things, by definition. But I have not said anything about actual lineages or ancestors. The supposed "Ancestors" are only conceptual nested groups.

Furthermore, a "Group" does not reproduce. An "Amniote Group" can not give rise to a "Placental Group". The group is only a simplified abstract idea. The actual species that fall within these groups are incredibly physiologically diverse. By referring to their supposed ancestors as "Groups", it becomes a way of deleting diversity. Focusing only on simple Groups nested within Groups helps sell the illusion that actual ancestral lineages are being identified, when they only exist as an abstract idea.

The abstract character or group creates an imaginary data point. The group: "Placenta" creates an imaginary ancestral lineage of "placental mammals", that all other placental mammals have descended from over time. The data point is imaginary, yet it seems as if an actual ancestral lineage of placental mammals has been identified.

In a similar way, the abstract character or group also deletes data, or deletes diversity. Placental mammals consist of an incredibly diverse array of real animals: (mice,dogs,rabbits,elephants,giraffes,apes,bears,seals,bats, etc. etc.) Yet by simply naming the Group "Placental Mammals", it provides the illusion that I have identified an ancestral lineage to all of these animals, while ignoring the incredible diversity found between individual types of placental mammals. I have stripped all of the information that would confound my imaginary lineage.

Nested Groups both create imaginary data, and delete real data, in order to help sell the illusion of phylogeny.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why would you want to create an illusion of phylogeny?

 

[EternalDragon]

Just give it some time. Someone will post over and over that a nested hierarchy does exist.

 

[EternalDragon]

Why would you want to create an illusion of phylogeny?

So your paper is accepted by peer review and you get continued funding and tenure? Just a guess.....

 

[HitchSlap]

So your paper is accepted by peer review and you get continued funding and tenure? Just a guess.....

So? What's so important about that?

 

[lifepsyop]

PARAPHYLETIC GROUPS:

A Paraphyletic group is defined as the descendents of the last common ancestor and its members minus a certain number of descendents.

But more generally speaking, a Paraphyletic group is defined by its lack of certain characters. This is an illusion that provides the requirement that Ancestors and Descendents be non-identical. That is to say that Ancestors must lack Descendent characteristics. In this way, Paraphyletic groups can be disguised as ancestors to another group.

In this example, we see that the Paraphyletic Group REPTILES, are defined as Amniotes that lack hair, mammary glands, and feathers. That is to say, Reptiles are Amniotes that are not Mammals or Birds. Again, this is creating the illusion that actual evolutionary ancestors or lineages are being identified, when they actually are not. We have created a fake Ancestral lineage called the "Reptiles" by simply defining them as non-Mammal, non-Bird Amniotes. Now that we have the illusion of an Ancestral lineage, we can create the Descendent group "Birds": "Birds evolved from the Reptiles". Again we have not actually identified any ancestral lineages, but it seems like we have.

Another simple example of this is Invertebrates / Vertebrates.

We can create a fake ancestral group called the "Invertebrates", by simply defining the group by its lack of Vertebrae (or Backbone). Now we can say that the Vertebrates evolved from an ancestral Invertebrate lineage. The illusion is effectively sold to the public. It sounds like we have identified the ancestor to Vertebrates, when we have only presented an abstract idea.

 

[EternalDragon]

So? What's so important about that?

So they don't have to go get a job at McDonalds?

 

[lifepsyop]

So your paper is accepted by peer review and you get continued funding and tenure? Just a guess.....

Sounds like a good incentive

 

[HitchSlap]

So they don't have to go get a job at McDonalds?

Who gives them the money, exactly?

 

[lifepsyop]

So they don't have to go get a job at McDonalds?

Hey now, we all know evolutionists have successful careers awaiting them in the creative writing/science-fiction industry.

 

[lifepsyop]

EVOLVING BODY PARTS:

The illusion is made by presenting only specific body parts as if they represented a lineage. This altars our perception by deleting data, as the rest of the body parts of the animal are absent. By selecting only certain body parts, it is easier to construct a gradual lineage-like appearance. Even within the selected body part, the evolutionist may delete size data, presenting the line of body parts in a uniform scale (instead of true scales relative to each other.)

For this, we'll use another example from the TalkOrigins website:

Here we are presented what looks like a convincing gradual progression of the jaw from primitive "reptile-mammals" to an early mammal form.

Of course this is an illusion for both reasons listed above. The rest of the organism data connected to the jaws has been deleted out, forcing us to focus only on the jaw bones themselves.

The scale of the jaw bones have also been uniformly sized to help sell the illusion of gradual change. For instance the Cynodonts go from being large dog-sized animals, to the tiny mouse-like animals like the Morganucodon at the top of the sequence. Size/scale data has been deleted.

Here are some images following the same above sequence, with more data added. (Showing the bottom species first)

Does it change your perception of this "gradual" transition?


Dimetrodon - (contrasting body plan deleted from sequence)

Advanced Cynodont: Chiniquodon - dog sized

Morganucodon - 4 inches long

 

[bhsmte]

Off to a good start. Ready for more entertainment.

 

[Old Ned]

Hey now, we all know evolutionists have successful careers awaiting them in the creative writing/science-fiction industry.

I really want to reply to this.
But I believe you are trolling. I hope you are trolling.

 

[CabVet]

The goal of this thread is to help pull back the curtain a little bit on the language and imagery used to sell the illusion of phylogeny to the public.

No, the goal of this thread is to spread false information, and you are failing at it.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, the goal of this thread is to spread false information, and you are failing at it.

Really, then why don't you point out what is false?

 

[EternalDragon]

Who gives them the money, exactly?

Grants from various government agencies, institutions, and foundations.

 

[sfs]

So your paper is accepted by peer review and you get continued funding and tenure? Just a guess.....

Working on evolution is a really crappy way to get funding; working on medically relevant biology is much better for getting grants. The odd thing is, many of us in what is basically biomedical research end up studying evolution anyway, since it's the only way of interpreting genetic data, and an extremely useful one at that.

I mean, we could try adopting creationism as a framework for understanding our data instead, but given the reluctance of creationists to ever say anything useful, it would be like seeking advice from turnips.

 

[sfs]

PARAPHYLETIC GROUPS:

A Paraphyletic group is defined as the descendents of the last common ancestor and its members minus a certain number of descendents.

But more generally speaking, a Paraphyletic group is defined by its lack of certain characters. This is an illusion that provides the requirement that Ancestors and Descendents be non-identical. That is to say that Ancestors must lack Descendent characteristics. In this way, Paraphyletic groups can be disguised as ancestors to another group.

In this example, we see that the Paraphyletic Group REPTILES, are defined as Amniotes that lack hair, mammary glands, and feathers. That is to say, Reptiles are Amniotes that are not Mammals or Birds. Again, this is creating the illusion that actual evolutionary ancestors or lineages are being identified, when they actually are not. We have created a fake Ancestral lineage called the "Reptiles" by simply defining them as non-Mammal, non-Bird Amniotes. Now that we have the illusion of an Ancestral lineage, we can create the Descendent group "Birds": "Birds evolved from the Reptiles". Again we have not actually identified any ancestral lineages, but it seems like we have.

Another simple example of this is Invertebrates / Vertebrates.

We can create a fake ancestral group called the "Invertebrates", by simply defining the group by its lack of Vertebrae (or Backbone). Now we can say that the Vertebrates evolved from an ancestral Invertebrate lineage. The illusion is effectively sold to the public. It sounds like we have identified the ancestor to Vertebrates, when we have only presented an abstract idea.

What on earth are you talking about? "Invertebrates" and "reptiles" are groupings rejected by evolutionary biologists, who often object to their use.

 

[sfs]

Here are some images following the same above sequence, with more data added. (Showing the bottom species first)

Does it change your perception of this "gradual" transition?

No. Are you always this easily distracted by irrelevancies?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The actual species that fall within these groups are incredibly physiologically diverse. By referring to their supposed ancestors as "Groups", it becomes a way of deleting diversity. Focusing only on simple Groups nested within Groups helps sell the illusion that actual ancestral lineages are being identified, when they only exist as an abstract idea...

In a similar way, the abstract character or group also deletes data, or deletes diversity. Placental mammals consist of an incredibly diverse array of real animals: (mice,dogs,rabbits,elephants,giraffes,apes,bears,seals,bats, etc. etc.) Yet by simply naming the Group "Placental Mammals", it provides the illusion that I have identified an ancestral lineage to all of these animals, while ignoring the incredible diversity found between individual types of placental mammals. I have stripped all of the information that would confound my imaginary lineage.

Off topic but...

You probably didn't notice, but you are making exactly the same argument I made when I pointed out the your imaginary Flood-produced pattern only exists if you conceptualize all the various groups as basically homogenous in terms of size, mobility and ecology. In reality, as you point out, these groups are "incredibly diverse" and by "ignoring the incredible diversity found between individual types" you have "stripped all of the information that would confound" your imaginary pattern. If you think you're making a valid argument here then you are by extension agreeing that my criticism of your Flood sorting model is valid.