Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Phylogenetics — Based on Worldviews

Coming to you from a haunted abandoned military hospital in Germany. I will leave and stop haunting it later. Unfortunately, muck-to-materialist evolution philosophies are still haunting the halls of academia and secular science.  One glaring example is the use of phylogenetics.


One attempt to prove evolution is based on phylogeny, the tree of life, and the universal common ancestor. The entire process defies logic and science.
Made at Add Letters, then modified
Phylogenetics is — 

"Was phylogenetics named after Philo Beddoe, Cowboy Bob?"

No, that was a character in a couple of Clint Eastwood movies.

Moving on...

Phylogenetics is a part of phylogeny, which is the assumed evolutionary history of living things. People who follow the origins controversy have probably heard of phylogenetic trees that illustrate how organisms diverged from a LUCA, Last Universal Common Ancestor.  Some evolutionists admit that not only is evolution historical science (not empirical science), but that philogenetics involves selecting data that fit their worldview and ignoring others. This is circular reasoning and preferences to support the naturalistic narrative to deny the Creator his rightful place.
The history of phylogenetics and its uses has been quite contentious. Many illogical arguments have been presented alongside a few more sensible ones. It is helpful to have an idea about what is presented, both good and bad, so that each can be logically refuted. Thus, this article contains a sampling of a wide range of arguments that evolutionists have used. The overarching idea, however, is that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of life, with extant taxa continuous or discontinuous depending on their relationships. Because phylogenies are performed under the assumption that similarity is equivalent with ancestry, similarity and ancestry are interpreted accordingly. The methodology itself can be used by creationists, as long as all similarity is not assumed to be the result of ancestry but could rather the possible result of a common Designer.
To read the rest of this informative and rather startling article, click on "Phylogenetics".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels