Darwinists Build Fake Phylogenetic Trees
No matter what kinds of organisms they study, Darwinists run into trouble by trying to prove ancestry.
Imagine dots on a whiteboard. How many lines could be drawn connecting them? The more dots, the more the permutations. Even if some of the dots cluster together, one cannot say that they are “related” or that some dots descended from other dots. Fossils are like that; sometimes they appear together, and often they share similar features. That doesn’t mean per se that they are related by common descent. Even if the most similar fossils were related, that doesn’t require that all fossils are related by a family tree. Universal common ancestry was one of Darwin’s most ambitious worldview projects. Today it is often just as puzzling as it was then.
In the following articles, look for two things: (1) overconfidence, and (2) puzzles.
We may finally have figured out which group of animals evolved first (New Scientist). Sponges were the first animals! No, comb jellies were first! The debate has gone back and forth for decades now. New Scientist chooses the comb jellies, or ctenophores. Problem: that requires the near-instantaneous emergence of a nervous system, gut, and locomotion. True to the Darwinist habit of Tontologism, Michael Marshall says “we” have figured this out.
Sponge or jelly? Though it sounds like a choice between desserts, it turns out that either sponges or comb jellies are the key to understanding the origin of animals, what the first animals were like and when the first brains evolved.
Ancient crocodiles’ family tree reveals unexpected twists and turns (Phys.org). Looking for phylogenetic trees can be frustrating, but it provides job security for storytellers.
Despite 300 years of research, and a recent renaissance in the study of their biological make-up, the mysterious, marauding teleosauroids have remained enduringly elusive.
Scientific understanding of this distant cousin of present day long snouted gharials has been hampered by a poor grasp of their evolutionary journey—until now.
Researchers from the University of Edinburgh have identified one previously unknown species of teleosauroid and seven of its close relatives—part of a group that dominated Jurassic coastlines 190 to 120 million years ago.
Their analysis offers tantalizing glimpses of how teleosauroids adapted to the momentous changes that occurred during the Jurassic period, as the earth’s seas experienced many changes in temperature.
“Our study just scratches the surface of teleosauroid evolution,” says study lead Dr. Michela M. Johnson, of the University’s School of GeoSciences. “But the findings are remarkable, raising interesting questions about their behavior and adaptability.
Indian fossils support new hypothesis for origin of hoofed mammals (Taylor & Francis Group). Artwork graces this new story of the search for an evolutionary way to link the horse and rhinoceros.
Cambaytherium, first described in 2005, is the most primitive member of an extinct group that branched off just before the evolution of perissodactyls, providing scientists with unique clues to the ancient origins and evolution of the group.
“The modern orders Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), Perissodactyla, and Primates appeared abruptly at the beginning of the Eocene around 56 million years ago across the Northern Hemisphere, but their geographic source has remained a mystery,” explained Ken Rose, emeritus professor at Johns Hopkins University and lead author of the study.
Tapirs belong to the Perissodactyla. Are they related to horses and rhinos? Read David Catchpoole’s description of the tapir and the problems evolutionists have relating this so-called “primitive” mammal to other mammals (Creation Magazine).
Researchers find flaws in how scientists build trees of life (University of Oregon). The above attempts to relate animals in phylogenetic trees probably don’t matter anyway. They’re doing it all wrong, say these evolutionists.
A University of Oregon biologist and a University of British Columbia colleague have finally solved the question of what genetic information can help explain past extinctions and the evolution of new and distinct species.
In a new paper placed online April 15 ahead of print in the April 23 issue of the journal Nature, they argue that long-used approaches for reconstructing evolutionary paths are deeply flawed.
While paleontology provides insights on how and why patterns of biodiversity have changed over geological time, fossils of many organisms are too scant to say anything, said Stilianos Louca, an assistant professor in the Department of Biology and member of the UO’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution. An alternative approach that relies on signals of identifiable changes in an organism’s genetic makeup also can be misleading.
“Our finding casts serious doubts over literally thousands of studies that use phylogenetic trees of extant data to reconstruct the diversification history of taxa, especially for those taxa where fossils are rare, or that found correlations between environmental factors such as changing global temperatures and species extinction rates,” Louca said, using a term for populations of one or more organisms that form a single unit.
There aren’t enough bones, and there aren’t enough genes, Louca says, to draw any inferences about relatedness. Nevertheless, he holds up Darwin’s house of cards with trembling hands. “The results, Louca said, do not invalidate the theory of evolution itself. They do, however, put constraints on what type of information can be extracted from genetic data to reconstruct evolution’s path.”
Our 7 Nov 2020 article showed that the evolutionists’ chief mechanism, natural selection, is an empty concept. This article shows that universal common ancestry is also fraught with puzzles and flawed techniques. Thus, the two arms of Darwinian theory are boneless, dangling without support.