Illusions of Phylogeny

[Split Rock]

There is no preponderance. The evidence for Evolution is mostly the assumption that it happened.

1. The classic nested hierarchy based on morphology
2. The genetic phylogeny which matches the classical nested hierarchy very closely
3. The fossil record which shows changes over time of not only species but entire ecosystems
4. Throwbacks or atavisms, which show that whales have the genetic data to make rear legs and birds have the genetic data to make teeth.
5. Vestigial organs which do not perform their primary function such as a pelvis in snakes and whales, eyes in blind fish, enclosed wings in beetles, etc.
6. Biogeogeography which when lined up with plate techtonics explains why fossils are found where they are.
7. Embryology which not only shows distantly related organisms go through similar stages, but that whales grow leg buds that are reabsorbed and have nostrils that move from the shout to the top of the head during development.
8. Nested hierarchies based on ERVs that match closely the other two hieararchies.

These are just off the top of my head... and you claim there is no evidence.

I have a challenge for you, which you have avoided like the plague. Show us how creationism explains all this better.

 

[Loudmouth]

This why abstract groups must be used in general. There is no actual ancestral data and never has been.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you even think about this before you posted it? This challenge is non-sensical. If something wasn't a mammal, then it would be classified as a non-mammal, and placed in a different nested group.

Why is that? If we look at a deck of cards, not all 4's are hearts, and not all hearts are 4's. I can show you a pickup that is a Dodge or a Chevy.

You are admitting that there is a phylogeny. It isn't an illusion.

 

[lifepsyop]

You are admitting that there is a phylogeny. It isn't an illusion.

You keep using that word "phylogeny". I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Loudmouth]

You keep using that word "phylogeny". I do not think it means what you think it means.

"In biology, phylogenetics /faɪlɵdʒɪˈnɛtɪks/ is the study of evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms (e.g. species, populations), which are discovered through molecular sequencing data and morphological data matrices."
Phylogenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you tell us why automobiles, cars, and other designed things do not fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy like life does?

 

[lifepsyop]

Can you tell us why automobiles, cars, and other designed things do not fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy like life does?

Hmmmmm... let me think...... because automobiles are not alive?

 

[lifepsyop]

"In biology, phylogenetics /faɪlɵdʒɪˈnɛtɪks/ is the study of evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms (e.g. species, populations), which are discovered through molecular sequencing data and morphological data matrices."

Glad you looked it up. Now you understand that the presence of a shared trait is not a "phylogeny"

 

[Split Rock]

Hmmmmm... let me think...... because automobiles are not alive?

And because they are intelligently designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Glad you looked it up. Now you understand that the presence of a shared trait is not a "phylogeny"

Correct, it is the pattern of shared traits that we use for constructing phylogenies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmmmmm... let me think...... because automobiles are not alive?

Glofish have been partially designed by humans.

GloFish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans took a fluorescence gene from jellyfish and inserted an exact copy of that gene into fish. Evolution would never take exact copies of genes from modern jellyfish and stick them into a modern teleost fish species. ID can. What we see are humans designing living fish that violate the nested hierarchy.

 

[Split Rock]

Glofish have been partially designed by humans.

GloFish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans took a fluorescence gene from jellyfish and inserted an exact copy of that gene into fish. Evolution would never take exact copies of genes from modern jellyfish and stick them into a modern teleost fish species. ID can. What we see are humans designing living fish that violate the nested hierarchy.

Well.... viruses can do this to, btw.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well.... viruses can do this to, btw.

Viruses can not move the jellyfish GFP gene into teleost fish. They also can not give reptiles a mammalian middle ear, or fur.

 

[lifepsyop]

Correct, it is the pattern of shared traits that we use for constructing phylogenies.

And those phylogenies are an illusion. There is no actual phylogeny identified. Groups are not reproductive units. And Evolution could accommodate countless different arrangements of nested groups based on shared traits. It does not predict what we find.

 

[lifepsyop]

They also can not give reptiles a mammalian middle ear, or fur.

Neither can culled genetic accidents, obviously.

 

[Loudmouth]

And those phylogenies are an illusion.

Then show me a species that can be classified as a primate but not a mammal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither can culled genetic accidents, obviously.

It's not obvious at all. Please, present some evidence.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then show me a species that can be classified as a primate but not a mammal.

If we found an animal with "primate-ness" but lacking mammalian traits (hair and mammary glands), it would be classified as part of a separate lineage that diverged before the line to mammals, convergently evolving a "primate-like" appearance.

Not unlike what has been done with monotremes. Since they are "mammals" but their reproductive system characters violate a placental or marsupial nested hierarchy, their line can be pushed back into mystical deep-time, where they diverged off of the placenta/marsupial line.

Evolution can accommodate nearly anything with storytelling.

 

[Loudmouth]

If we found an animal with "primate-ness" but lacking mammalian traits (hair and mammary glands), it would be classified as part of a separate lineage that diverged before the line to mammals, convergently evolving a "primate-like" appearance.

No it wouldn't. It would be cited as evidence against evolution, as it would be. The fact that we don't find these species is what evidence evolution.

Not unlike what has been done with monotremes. Since they are "mammals" but their reproductive system characters violate a placental or marsupial nested hierarchy, their line can be pushed back into mystical deep-time, where they diverged off of the placenta/marsupial line.

Evolution can accommodate nearly anything with storytelling.

Their reproductive system is reptillian, as were our ancestors.

 

[lifepsyop]

It would be cited as evidence against evolution, as it would be. The fact that we don't find these species is what evidence evolution.

lol, no. It would simply be regarded as some kind of evolutionary offshoot.

Look at monotremes again. There are only a small handful of specimens, both modern and fossilized, yet they are given their own grand lineage in the great story of phylogeny.

When you're playing around with imaginary deep-time data points, you can make up whatever you want.

Their reproductive system is reptillian, as were our ancestors.

Exactly, the power of storytelling. Traits can either be viewed as derived from mystical ancestors, or be viewed as evolutionary novelties. Whatever helps the story.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution can accommodate nearly anything with storytelling.

You say this a lot, but it is not true. Let's take an example out of history. When Darwin proposed his theory, he knew nothing about genes, chromosomes, or DNA. Once it was learned that the DNA sequence of chromosomes carried the genetic information, however, the theory predicted that the genetic sequence of closely related organisms would be more similar than those between distantly related organisms. This is a requirement of genetic descent. Now had each organism been separately designed, they could have been given individual codes (one for dogs, another for cats, etc.), or genes that varied in sequence in a random manner (especially in non-active sites), or genes that were the same in all organisms for the same proteins, or identical non-coding regions, etc. Whales could have been given fish genes, since they live in the same aquatic environment, and bats could have been given bird genes since they both fly. Sure, mammals would all require certain genes since they were mammals. However, if function dictated gene sequence, then flight muscles of bats and birds could have been coded by the same genes, etc. That isn't what we have found. Instead we have found what was predicted by the requirements of genetic descent.