What do creationists think phylogenetic trees represent?

[pitabread]

I've often encountered different responses to the concept of phylogenetic trees. There seems to be varied views by creationists of what they represent.

In a nutshell, phylogenetic trees are evolutionary relationships of species (and higher taxa). They are both constructed and applied on that premise.

Yet, creationists seem to have differing views. Some will accept the relationships that phylogenetics present to certain level (usually within "kinds", whatever those are), but dismiss the rest as a fabrication. For example: https://answersingenesis.org/theory...en-tree-life-summarizes-evolutionary-beliefs/

On the other hand, I've also encountered creationists claiming that rather that showcasing common descent relationships, they claim phylogenetics actually shows "common design". Now I've never really understood what that is supposed to mean or why designed organisms would fit into a hierarchy predicated on evolutionary relationships, but some do seem to have that view.

So what do the creationists here think? What do phylogenetic trees mean to you?

 

[RC1970]

Correlation fallacy.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In a nutshell, phylogenetic trees are evolutionary relationships of species (and higher taxa). They are both constructed and applied on that premise.

In other words,
they are like disney movies - man made , fake, unreal.

The are not "evolutionary relationships of anything" ,
they are called "evolutionary relationships...."
by
those who made them up without any truth.

 

[Saucy]

Sort of what was hinted before, I've always heard it compared to it being created by the same Creator. Much like you can tell all Fords apart from all Dodges. We share a large percentage of DNA with fruit and insects. I take that as God using the same DNA code to create all life on earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

This gets down to the EVOLUTIONARY TREE vs the CREATION ORCHARD:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words,
they are like disney movies - man made , fake, unreal.

No. Phylogenetic trees are the result of objective mapping of "matches" in comparative genomics.

These days, the process is even automated - and the only reason such software could be written, is simply because it is an object method of mapping out matches in comparative genomics.

When you map it out, it falls into a tree structure, just like a family tree.
There's nothing "man-made", "fake" or "unreal" about that.

That just is how the collective DNA of species happens to be structured.
Which is 100% consistent with common ancestry and 0% expected for designed products.

The are not "evolutionary relationships of anything" ,
they are called "evolutionary relationships...."
by
those who made them up without any truth.

When you have 2 DNA sequences:
- CGTACGTA
and
- CGTTCGTA

Then mapping out the matches and differences is about as truthful as it gets.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sort of what was hinted before, I've always heard it compared to it being created by the same Creator. Much like you can tell all Fords apart from all Dodges. We share a large percentage of DNA with fruit and insects. I take that as God using the same DNA code to create all life on earth.

Sure. The only problem is, that we would NOT expect nested hierarchies in such a setting.

For example: why on earth would a chicken, which doesn't have teeth, carry with it the inactive DNA to build teeth?

Or why would all primates carry the same broken gene for vitamine production while being broken in the exact same way in all of them?

It makes no sense at all.

On the flip side, we have this model with extreme explanatory power, called Evolution.
This model not only predicts that we should see nested hierarchies (including for "broken" DNA - not just working DNA), it demands a nested hierarchy. As in: if we map out collective DNA and DON'T end up with a high-level tree-like structure depicted as a nested hierarchy... then evolution is falsified.

So, we have those 2 models on the table then...
One where we do NOT expect a nested hierarchy.
One where we REQUIRE a nested hierarchy.

We find that there is a nested hierarchy.

Draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

This gets down to the EVOLUTIONARY TREE vs the CREATION ORCHARD:

After I finished watching that video (at x2 speed because that guy was a slow talker!) it recommended this video of Ken Miller:

The whole talk is great, but I'd be curious to hear your response to this segment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

After I finished watching that video (at x2 speed because that guy was a slow talker!) it recommended this video of Ken Miller:

The whole talk is great, but I'd be curious to hear your response to this segment.

Likely the response will be some variation of the response that Ken Miller himself predicts in that very clip:
"shrugging shoulders and saying...that's how the designer made it..."

 

[AV1611VET]

The whole talk is great, but I'd be curious to hear your response to this segment.

Ontological reduction.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Ontological reduction.

I was going to just reply to this but I don't want to talk past each other. Can you explain in what way he's guilty of ontological reductionism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you explain in what way he's guilty of ontological reductionism?

Who is "he" in your sentence? God or Ken Miller?

God created the universe, using just so many elements that are depicted in the Periodic Table (actually less, since some are synthetic elements).

This is known as ontological reduction.

Ever heard the story of the star and the spider?

Take a star and a spider and break them down. The star is made up of "star stuff," and the spider is made up of "spider stuff."

Break them down even further, and the star is made of inorganic stuff, and the spider is made of organic stuff.

Keep breaking them down and you eventually end up with identical elements on the Periodic Table.

In short, God could have used these fused telomeres in both apes and man.

And to accuse Him of "deception" for doing that is like accusing GM of deception for putting the same kind of tires on their cars (i.e., rubber) as Saab.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Who is "he" in your sentence? God or Ken Miller?

God created the universe, using just so many elements that are depicted in the Periodic Table (actually less, since some are synthetic elements).

This is known as ontological reduction.

Ever heard the story of the star and the spider?

Take a star and a spider and break them down. The star is made up of "star stuff," and the spider is made up of "spider stuff."

Break them down even further, and the star is made of inorganic stuff, and the spider is made of organic stuff.

Keep breaking them down and you eventually end up with identical elements on the Periodic Table.

In short, God could have used these fused telomeres in both apes and man.

And to accuse Him of "deception" for doing that is like accusing GM of deception for putting the same kind of tires on their cars (i.e., rubber) as Saab.

Do you want to discuss all of the different things God could have done? That doesn't really interest me, but maybe someone else would enjoy it.

When you can stop equating car manufacturing with biological processes, I think that'll be a good start for future discussions. I do appreciate the engagement though, I truly do.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you can stop equating car manufacturing with biological processes, I think that'll be a good start for future discussions.

Then nuts to cars.

Use a baby buggy.

Anything with rubber tires.

At the atomic (elemental) level, all things are the same ... be they biological or nonbiological.

CHNO in a human is the same as CHNO in my barbecue briquettes or gas tank.

Ditto for lead: the lead in my gas is the same as the lead in my pencil.

If I could ask that ... catholic ... one question, it would be this:

"Just YES or NO, please: did a mutant, Homo, copy-error die on the Cross to effect our salvation?"

Or better yet: "Was God being deceptive when He had a virgin give birth to Jesus?"

Or I could even ask him: "Was God being deceptive when Mary gave birth to a man child?"

(After all, where did He get His Y-chromosome?)

I'm about as tired of hearing how God is "deceptive" because He didn't do things science's way, than you are about hearing objects being compared to biological processes.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

objective

i.e. man's way. not good. not truth. not healing. not helpful.
(in context used)

 

[pitabread]

i.e. man's way. not good. not truth. not healing. not helpful.
(in context used)

Would it surprise you to learn that phylogenetics have real world applications?

 

[Jimmy D]

i.e. man's way. not good. not truth. not healing. not helpful.
(in context used)

Speak for yourself chief.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Speak for yourself chief.

Never.
And it's slave, not chief.
I always speak for YHWH in Y'SHUA ,
WHO PURCHASED ME with HIS BLOOD , for my atonement from sin,
and I AM HIS!

 

[pitabread]

Sort of what was hinted before, I've always heard it compared to it being created by the same Creator. Much like you can tell all Fords apart from all Dodges. We share a large percentage of DNA with fruit and insects. I take that as God using the same DNA code to create all life on earth.

The challenges I find with this view are:

a) Why about cases of convergence? In other words, where organisms have superficially similar outward appearances, but may have significant genetic differences? This is especially the case where organisms may have evolved different, yet similar adaptations to specific environments. For example, whales + dolphins versus fish.

b) Why don't we see genetic chimeras in nature? A designer wouldn't be limited by the bounds of reproduction and inheritance. They could conceivably mix 'n match DNA among different species, leading to living species that would in no way fit into a nested hierarchy based on genetic descent. Yet, we don't see such things in nature.

The view is that if a designer was responsible for tinkering with the DNA of individual creatures, they appear to have done so to give the impression of evolutionary relationships via common descent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i.e. man's way. not good. not truth. not healing. not helpful.
(in context used)

You're not making any sense.

CTGA and CTGT. Is it really "subjective" and "not truth" to say that these two sequences match on the first "CTG" part?

If you answer "yes" to that question, then I'ld love to hear what, in your opinion, is the difference between "subjective" and "objective".

As for "helpful"... courts certainly find it helpfull that we are capable of determining the common biological ancestry of contested children.