Fake Evidence and Phylogenetic Trees
Every once in a while, a petulant evolutionist will tell a creationist to visit a natural history museum, read a book about evolution, watch a documentary, or do something else approved by the secular science industry. Then the creationist will learn something. That is true, but not in the way evolutionists would expect.
Darwin's disciples know how to present opinions as facts. They can also obfuscate evidence, present what they like and ignore inconvenient truths. Charts, drawings, dioramas, and phylogenetic trees are used as evidence for evolution. Not hardly!
 |
| Enhanced version of Darwin's Tree of Life Sketch (PD) |
No, the drawing shows what someone believes. It is not factual, but conjectural. It is also illogical to use an illustrated hypothesis (because that's what a phylogenetic tree is) as evidence. Even Papa Darwin himself had the decency to write, "I think" on his drawing. Creationists, don't be hornswoggled. Look for the evidence behind the stories — if any exists.
Don't be disunderstanding me here. Although phylogenetic trees are wrongly used as evidence for evolution, they can be useful tools. People just need to be accurate and state that they are hypotheses, and to stop using them as validations.
Phylogenetic trees are everywhere in biology. From textbooks to peer-reviewed papers, it’s difficult to discuss biology without stumbling into a phylogenetic tree or five. Often, they are portrayed as evidence that organisms X and Y evolved from a common ancestor. However, it turns out that phylogenetic trees are never evidence for anything. Presenting them as evidence is a logical error propagated by people who do not understand what phylogenetic trees are.
To read the rest, click on "Phylogenetic Trees Are Not Evidence." Also of interest is "Question Evolution Day and Phylogenetic Logic."