[__ Science __ ] Are cladograms representative of truth

[brother Paul]

To begin for readers that may be unfamiliar....

a cladogram (one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.

It is a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor). The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the how’s and where’s of where the ASSUMED branching or splitting occurred..

It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees. It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes and so on, shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.

In cladograms, the assumed common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual or subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population. In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.

Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis from Thailand reckoned to be an ancestor of Orangutans allegedly existed about 10 – 13.6 mya. This was final confirmation of the long held belief that Apes (that became Gorillas and Orangutans) originated and came out of Asia. The split had previously been believed to have happened about 8 mya (the chimp human split occurring about 6 mya as this clade depicts). Only now we have found indications of Gorillas (Chororapithecus abyssinicus) in Africa from 10 – 12 mya (What?) and the whole house of cards comes falling down and now we even have to correct the textbooks (What? Not really uncommon) but sadly many generations are already brainwashed. Will they admit they were wr-wr-wrong? NO! ...

As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one), though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts. Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it.

So this is saying all of these are probably related at these possible places in the presupposed genetic lineage.

But sadly many atheists on these forums see these cladograms as evidential support or even demonstration of established fact.

Any thoughts?

 

[Eugene]

So this is saying all of these are probably related at these possible places in the presupposed genetic lineage.
But sadly many atheists on these forums see these cladograms as evidential support or even demonstration of established fact.
Any thoughts?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Is man really from a monkey?
No, they were made out of nothing.
God spoke them into existence by His own powerful Word. A.S. Copley
http://www.gracegod.com/Study Books/Hebrews - From Shadows to Substance.pdf
NOTE: The Grace and Glory Study books are in PDF format and can be read with the free Adobe Reader . I unchecked the two optional offers of McAfee.

 

[brother Paul]

Amen to that...

 

[Edward]

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Is man really from a monkey?
No, they were made out of nothing.
God spoke them into existence by His own powerful Word. A.S. Copley
http://www.gracegod.com/Study Books/Hebrews - From Shadows to Substance.pdf
NOTE: The Grace and Glory Study books are in PDF format and can be read with the free Adobe Reader . I unchecked the two optional offers of McAfee.

If this be true, (and I believe that it is...), then, (check me on this), man, as a new creature ...in Christ, in faith...frames up his own life and future according to his words spoken by him. for all that Christ is and has is now ours, given to us by Christ, after the cross...

No wonder it's what comes out of the mouth of man that defiles him, for his words would frame that up.
No wonder we're supposed to diligently guard our heart so that our mouth will not overflow from the abundance of our heart and speak/frame up a sin future fraught with failure. (Proverbs 4:23-2
23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee../

...the issues of life. That's everything. Because man spoke it.

Oh Lord, fill my heart with only thine words so that, that is all that could ever emanate from my lips...

 

[Eugene]

If this be true, (and I believe that it is...), then, (check me on this), man, as a new creature ...in Christ, in faith...frames up his own life and future according to his words spoken by him. for all that Christ is and has is now ours, given to us by Christ, after the cross...

No wonder it's what comes out of the mouth of man that defiles him, for his words would frame that up.
No wonder we're supposed to diligently guard our heart so that our mouth will not overflow from the abundance of our heart and speak/frame up a sin future fraught with failure. (Proverbs 4:23-2
23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee../

...the issues of life. That's everything. Because man spoke it.

Oh Lord, fill my heart with only thine words so that, that is all that could ever emanate from my lips...

To tell you the truth Brother Edward, I don't know how that applies to creation.

 

[Milk-Drops]

To begin for readers that may be unfamiliar....

a cladogram (one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.

No its a diagram that shows lineage and relations between species based on both homology and genetics. Cladograms aren't designed from the ground up, but more like a crossword puzzle.

It is a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related

Its a visual representation of what the evidence points to at this time.

(only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor).

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just assuming this is what is going on?

The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the how’s and where’s of where the ASSUMED branching or splitting occurred..

Ok, Intelligent design is such a vague concept that people connecting lines are now forces. This is really reaching.

It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees.

So your argument is that since man researches and connects dots where they find them, they are a designer now? This isn't design because a design would be made from whole cloth where what is actually going on is that scientists are collecting data and drawing up graphs based on that data. That is different from say an engineer trying to build a schematic to make something.

It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes and so on, shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.

That is an extreme over simplification. Organisms are grouped together based on their genetics, Yes but they are not necessarily determined to be direct ancestors. Many organisms end in dead ends. Your argument assumes that there are no rules or laws that genetics follows and that these organisms are grouped based on those laws and theories.

In cladograms, the assumed common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual or subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population. In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.

Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis from Thailand reckoned to be an ancestor of Orangutans allegedly existed about 10 – 13.6 mya. This was final confirmation of the long held belief that Apes (that became Gorillas and Orangutans) originated and came out of Asia. The split had previously been believed to have happened about 8 mya (the chimp human split occurring about 6 mya as this clade depicts). Only now we have found indications of Gorillas (Chororapithecus abyssinicus) in Africa from 10 – 12 mya (What?) and the whole house of cards comes falling down and now we even have to correct the textbooks (What? Not really uncommon) but sadly many generations are already brainwashed. Will they admit they were wr-wr-wrong? NO! ...

Do you no understand how science works? When new information comes out, the text books are corrected. You are saying kids are being brain washed, but unless they were doing a deep study of Ape lineages they would probably never came across this information, and even if they did one of the first things you learn in any science class is that information is updated when new evidence arises. You understand that science isn't a dogmatic faith right?

As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one), though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts. Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it.

So this is saying all of these are probably related at these possible places in the presupposed genetic lineage.

But sadly many atheists on these forums see these cladograms as evidential support or even demonstration of established fact.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, you are complaining that science corrects itself and builds models that are based on the evidence know at the time. It tells me you really don't understand why many science based atheists don't see this as a problem. I think that is about it.

You remind me of those people that read a short list of Bible contradictions and think they are suddenly experts on the Bible. Just my 2 cents.

 

[brother Paul]

No its a diagram that shows lineage and relations between species based on both homology and genetics. Cladograms aren't designed from the ground up, but more like a crossword puzzle.

Its a visual representation of what the evidence points to at this time. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just assuming this is what is going on?

Ok, Intelligent design is such a vague concept that people connecting lines are now forces. This is really reaching.

So your argument is that since man researches and connects dots where they find them, they are a designer now? This isn't design because a design would be made from whole cloth where what is actually going on is that scientists are collecting data and drawing up graphs based on that data. That is different from say an engineer trying to build a schematic to make something.


That is an extreme over simplification. Organisms are grouped together based on their genetics, Yes but they are not necessarily determined to be direct ancestors. Many organisms end in dead ends. Your argument assumes that there are no rules or laws that genetics follows and that these organisms are grouped based on those laws and theories.

Do you no understand how science works? When new information comes out, the text books are corrected. You are saying kids are being brain washed, but unless they were doing a deep study of Ape lineages they would probably never came across this information, and even if they did one of the first things you learn in any science class is that information is updated when new evidence arises. You understand that science isn't a dogmatic faith right?

Yeah, you are complaining that science corrects itself and builds models that are based on the evidence know at the time. It tells me you really don't understand why many science based atheists don't see this as a problem. I think that is about it.

You remind me of those people that read a short list of Bible contradictions and think they are suddenly experts on the Bible. Just my 2 cents.

So what do you think about this article? Understanding Evolution reports in "Reconstructing trees: Cladistics"

"Cladistics is a method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms — in other words, a method of reconstructing evolutionary trees. The basis of a cladistic analysis is data on the characters, or traits, of the organisms in which we are interested. These characters could be anatomical and physiological characteristics, behaviors, or genetic sequences."

(thus these hypothesized relationships are based first on selected data the cladist is interested in)

"The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related."

(hence the GIGO principle...and new data as would also a new analysis changes the clade and could be interpreted to support a different or negating hypothesis, The current conclusionary interpretation is based on three ASSUMPTIONS..as already indicated)

(Assumptions) There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

(or so the experts say...er...ah....ASSUMPTIONS)

1. "Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
The assumption that characteristics of organisms change over time is the most important one in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. We call the "original" state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the "changed" state apomorphic"

(no one denies this...they simply HYPOTHESIZE other causes and how far this goes...example: I see only evidence here of invertebrae becoming other varieties of invertebrae not vertebrae, fish becoming other varieties of fish not amphibians and so on)

2. "Any group of organisms is related by descent from a common ancestor.
This assumption is supported by many lines of evidence and essentially means that all life on Earth today is related and shares a common ancestor. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and hypothesize a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information."

(this is an essential ASSUMPTION if one is to accept evolutionist concepts of phylogeny which is also hypothesized)

3. "There is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.
This assumption suggests that when a lineage splits, it divides into exactly two groups. There are some situations that violate this assumption. For example, many biologists accept the idea that multiple new lineages have arisen from a single originating population at the same time, or near enough in time to be indistinguishable from such an event (as in the case of the cichlid fish described previously). The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups, which occurs at least occasionally in some groups (like plants). While such exceptions may exist, for many groups they are relatively rare and so this assumption often holds true."

(the one interprets to support divergence the other convergence but neither supports phylogeny outside of or across assumed borders other than the production of variety)

So according to the consensus of the experts represented, they are objective enough to admit that these are assumptions (as I have been trying to convey). Start by accepting this TRUTH on a deeper journey to true objectivity.

Unless you assume one of the assumptions is actually a demonstrated fact (like #2 for example)?

 

[Edward]

To tell you the truth Brother Edward, I don't know how that applies to creation.

It's prolly the same across the board for all of it like that. Mankind has forgotten the power of the spoken word, and His scriptures constantly remind us, bridle our tongues, let not cursing and blessing come out of the same mouth, guard our heart for it guides our mouth many times...and on and on and on...and the reality is real. blessings will really bless people. We should expect the results that we speak of. Not many do this I notice...I try not to.

 

[brujaq]

Why would and how could any animal not be considered perfect to perform it's created function ? Why would a starfish evolve into another type of animal when it is already complete perfect and unique ? IMO It is beyond arrogant to call any creature inferior to assume evolution into another more superior biologically speaking .. Job 38 -39 -40 .. Cladograms are amusing at most imo

 

[Milk-Drops]

Why would and how could any animal not be considered perfect to perform it's created function ? Why would a starfish evolve into another type of animal when it is already complete perfect and unique ? IMO It is beyond arrogant to call any creature inferior to assume evolution into another more superior biologically speaking .. Job 38 -39 -40 .. Cladograms are amusing at most imo

Organisms aren’t considered inferior or superior, organisms change from generation to generation regardless. Clade’s split when enough changes occur to differentiate lineage.

 

[brujaq]

Organisms aren’t considered inferior or superior, organisms change from generation to generation regardless. Clade’s split when enough changes occur to differentiate lineage.

On your cladograms and in your mind .. Repent and turn to Jesus before it's too late friend .. 2 Peter 1:16

 

[Milk-Drops]

On your cladograms and in your mind .. Repent and turn to Jesus before it's too late friend .. 2 Peter 1:16

Here is the thing, I don't see how that has anything to do with what either of us had previously said. You presumed wrong and I corrected you. Me coming to jesus won't change that you don't know much about the topic at hand. When I have questions about science, religion doesn't Hoffer me those answers because it doesn't seek those answers. That is why I get frustrated with these threads. It seems that it's not about understanding science, but just tearing it down.

 

[brujaq]

Here is the thing, I don't see how that has anything to do with what either of us had previously said. You presumed wrong and I corrected you. Me coming to jesus won't change that you don't know much about the topic at hand. When I have questions about science, religion doesn't Hoffer me those answers because it doesn't seek those answers. That is why I get frustrated with these threads. It seems that it's not about understanding science, but just tearing it down.

You are a non Christian on a Christian forums trying to convince Christian folks that cladograms which are imagined and drawn up mostly by non believers hold some kind of validity dude .. They are lifeless and a funny joke imo ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

You are a non Christian

Yes, it states for everyone to see that I'm not a Christian. Woopie! That means nothing to the topic. I know you see this as a joke, but think about this for a second, science is used to make and understand things. That's it. Science takes the magic out of the world because it seeks to understand the world we live in. Cladograms are based off what has been observed. I don't get this "it's just imagined" line because it's not any more imagined then how electricity, gravity, or any other process or force works.

If you are happy just saying God did something, cool. I just don't get this need to tear down science when all its trying to do is understand the world and use that understanding to make things. Why the need to vilafy and tear it down?

 

[brujaq]

Yes, it states for everyone to see that I'm not a Christian. Woopie! That means nothing to the topic. I know you see this as a joke, but think about this for a second, science is used to make and understand things. That's it. Science takes the magic out of the world because it seeks to understand the world we live in. Cladograms are based off what has been observed. I don't get this "it's just imagined" line because it's not any more imagined then how electricity, gravity, or any other process or force works.

If you are happy just saying God did something, cool. I just don't get this need to tear down science when all its trying to do is understand the world and use that understanding to make things. Why the need to vilafy and tear it down?

Why did you not quote my entire post ?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Why did you not quote my entire post

I adressed everything anyway. Do you feel like adressing my point? Why tear down science?

 

[brujaq]

I adressed everything anyway. Do you feel like adressing my point? Why tear down science?

I don't tear down science, but I also don't wallpaper over it with silly cladograms ..
Was a trilobite fossil found proving it had been crushed by a childs sandal ? I thought those thing were supposedly extinct way before humans were penciled into the cladograms ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't tear down science, but I also don't wallpaper over it with silly cladograms ..

What exactly is silly about a cladogram? It's just a chart that show relations of organisms based on genetics and physical features. That which is backed by tested science around inheritance and lineage. Why is that silly?

Was a trilobite fossil found proving it had been crushed by a childs sandal ? I thought those thing were supposedly extinct way before humans were penciled into the cladograms ..

No, a fosil of a trilobite being crushed by a sandal has not been found. The Meister Print is a fosil of a trilobite and what looks like a pint of something resembling a shoe print, but the dimensions are not congruent with human feet, plus the very researchers Meister used to claim validity told him they weren't boot or foot prints, but break offs of shale that just looked similar to foot prints.
You can read it for yourself here.
https://ncse.com/cej/2/4/tripping-over-trilobite-study-meister-tracks

 

[brujaq]

What exactly is silly about a cladogram? It's just a chart that show relations of organisms based on genetics and physical features. That which is backed by tested science around inheritance and lineage. Why is that silly?


No, a fosil of a trilobite being crushed by a sandal has not been found. The Meister Print is a fosil of a trilobite and what looks like a pint of something resembling a shoe print, but the dimensions are not congruent with human feet, plus the very researchers Meister used to claim validity told him they weren't boot or foot prints, but break offs of shale that just looked similar to foot prints.
You can read it for yourself here.
https://ncse.com/cej/2/4/tripping-over-trilobite-study-meister-tracks

Why do you tear down science ? Was the trilobite crushed ?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Why do you tear down science ? Was the trilobite crushed ?

A trilobite was fosilized, but not by being stepped on by a boot. Read the link. Its not a tear down of science, because the person who was claiming it was a a trilobite crushed by a human boot wasn't even a scientist, but a pastor with an agenda who lied about what the actual scientists told him.

The gate is extremely awkward if it was human and the print dimensions are not the same as human feet.

Same as the last video.

Oh my, you are actually using Carl Baugh, Carl doesn't understand the differnce between fossilization and calcification.

In this specific video Carl is showing us a fosil that has not been confirmed to be human prints, but just asserted as human prints. The creation museum does not let outside scientists examine their specimens. They also never correct information when its shown to be false.

Hense the trilobyte boot print which was disproven in the 80s.