Question Evolution Day and Phylogenetic Logic

Retail merchandisers in big chain stores often use planograms, which are basically maps for the placement of items. Those are from the dictates of corporate headquarters, and some of them are very strange. Placement of merchandise is often quite irrational.

Believers in universal common descent evolution believer in the evolutionary tree of life, and the secular science industry has naturalistic versions of planograms called cladograms. This is phylogeny, attempting to show relationships between organisms.

Enhanced version of Darwin's Tree of Life Sketch

Clades can be useful tools showing relationships between living things, but within well-defined limits. Evolutionary planograms — I mean, cladograms — are based on the presupposition that fish-to-fool evolution happened. Although it is considered a theory, evolution is treated like a fact that should not be questioned. No free speech, no free thought. But yes, by all means, indulge in circular logic by assuming evolution to prove evolution.

Sure, they dispute and fuss about how some things supposedly evolved, but not the general theory itself. The narrative is more important than details, despite the fact that clades are breeding grounds for disagreements. Meanwhile, Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ shove the cladogram pictures in the faces of creationists and act like evolution is settled science. It is nothing of the kind, old son, and is deceptive.

The truth is that there is a Creator, he makes the rules, and the Tree of Life is false. This is yet another reason that Question Evolution Day is so important. Not only for creationists, but to try to help Darwinists wake up and do some serious questioning themselves.

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 finish reading, venture to "Beyond Darwin's Tree: A Critical Look at Phylogenetics." You'll thank me later.