Jump to content


Photo

Evidence For Evolution- Phylogenetic Trees


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 February 2016 - 10:19 PM

It seems that phylogenetic trees are often a "port of call" for the evolutionist, when being asked for evidence. Sadly, had the evolutionist a bit more scientific nouse he / she would realise that this is not, actually cannot be evidence for evolution.

Here are some points for such

 

1- Phylogenetic trees assume common ancestry.

In order to arrive with said tree one must assume that "similarities = ancestry" (which is an entire thread of its own.... my evolution did it thread). Yet what this means is that the evolutionist must first assume that common ancestry (evolution) exists in order to justify the methodology of said phylogenetic tree. What this means is that this rendition of an evolutionists "evidence" is actually circular reasoning.

 

 

2- Phylogenetic trees are founded on the assumption that "similarities = ancestry".... Except when it isn't.

As stated before however this point has two connotations. First it means that the "evidence" evolutionists use is in fact based on an unfounded assumption... In order to deem such as actual science there needs to be experimental confirmation of said assumption, yet there can be none since it was (allegedly) a PAST event. Secondly the assumption of "similarities = ancestry" is destroyed by the occurrence of convergence. For those who don't know, convergence is where similarities occur which DO NOT HAVE ANY RELATION TO ANCESTRY.... (This is important to grasp, hence the capitals). Therefore when evolutionists assume "similarities = ancestry" they do based on what they BELIEVE to be due to ancestry and what they BELIEVE to be convergent, the reason for this is because there is no actual method to determine what is convergent and what isn't, its solely at the discretion of the evolutionist. Hence the underlying assumption for phylogenetic trees is a demonstrably false one.

 

3- The methodology
 

I found this out when I was in second year of my Biotechnology degree. The method of determining a phylogenetic tree destroys its creditability as "evidence" since it relies on data manipulation. All DNA sets that are analysed are first processed for analysis, what happens is a computer program runs through the data and adds gaps in order to align the more similar parts together. This process is called alignment. Now the justification for this is the assumption that mutation "must have" occurred and altered the DNA so these gaps are meant to represent the parts that were mutated... However this assumes that the DNA was similar to start with, which leads to another occurrence of point 1- circular reasoning. This "evidence" is meant to support evolution (aka common ancestry), therefore assuming common ancestry existed in order to justify the methodology is a HUGE problem.

Now the alignment itself aligns the DNA which you include for processing, each time you do an alignment with different DNA you get different gaps. I tested this by aligning two copies of the same DNA sequence with other similar (but different) sequences. I got different gaps for the two copies, if I switched the copies over there would be practically zero similarities despite being the same DNA code.... Now the issue here is how do I know which set of gaps occurred? They are meant to be representative of reality right? Sadly the assumption of mutations allows the blatant manipulation of data by evolutionists.... which they (somehow) call "science".


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#2 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:19 PM

phylogeny assumes traits can be inherited or, less commonly, arise by mutation: basis is life around us.  Only after the data has been assessed and mapped is a picture of common descent, rather than unconnected lineages, indicated.

Comparable assumptions and method would be used by creationists attempting to identify relatedness "within kinds".

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 February 2016 - 10:00 PM

phylogeny assumes traits can be inherited or, less commonly, arise by mutation: basis is life around us.  Only after the data has been assessed and mapped is a picture of common descent, rather than unconnected lineages, indicated.

Comparable assumptions and method would be used by creationists attempting to identify relatedness "within kinds".

 

Are you going to address the OP? Or do you agree with what I have stated?

 

1- Do you admit that to assume evolution is true and then use this to justify evidence for evolution is a textbook example of circular reasoning?

 

2- Do you admit to the contradiction of convergence and evolutionists assuming "similarities = ancestry"?

 

3- Do you admit to the blatant manipulation of data via DNA "alignment", and agree that such a method is BAD science?
 

 

Or are you going to ignore these issues in the hope that people don't bother to read the OP?

 


  • Enoch 2021 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users