Phylogeny Challenge

This is the ultimate challenge to be answered by anyone hoping to promote creationism; the identification of "created kinds"? Any intrepid creationist who attempts to meet this challenge will instead discover a truth which John Muir once described thus: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."

Included in this video is one cladogram everyone asks about but few can find. So here it is:
http://www.bork.embl.de/tree_of_life/

• Category

  Science & Technology

[88Keyz102]

I'm sure that if I were to look at a stack of pictures of you at different ages of your life, I will believe that the 4 year old kid is you. I will also believe that the 18 year old adult is you. But at what point do we draw the line between child & adult? Were you a baby who sprouted our longer limbs, pubic hair, deeper voice from one moment to another? Or did it happen gradually? If it happened gradually, there is no line.

[extremophile]

It never ceases to amaze me that many people believe in the least parsimonious hypotheses you can imagine. We are so similar to other apes, with a smooth gradation of fossil intermediates, with some lifestyles that are nearly as low/non-tech as you can get, but no, we're the sons of a alien-gods who care for us and will take us to heaven someday... the appeal must be this "special" thing. Evolution is too humble, makes some feel humiliated, "we can't be just an animal, a monkey".

[ErgoCogita]

"Macroevolution shouldn't be defined as speciation. "

In case you missed it, he stated that macroevolution BEGINS at the level of speciation. Not that speciation is macroevolution.

Alternately, please provide an occurrence of macroevolution which does not involve at least one speciation event.

[ErgoCogita]

"but phylogeny is not evidence for common ancestry"

Phylogeny alone may not prove common ancestry, on it's own. However, phylogeny IS evidence for common ancestry. And considering the complete and utter lack of evidence for anything other than common ancestry, your comment would seem to be an attempt at trolling.

[bdijkstra1982]

What are you implying? There is no need for phylogeny to be evidence for common ancestry.

[Johnny Diala]

I'm not a creationist by any means, but phylogeny is not evidence for common ancestry. It's evidence for organisms with similar genotypes having similar phenotypes.

[Johnny Diala]

Macroevolution shouldn't be defined as speciation. Eventually, microevolution creates enough genetic difference between two populations that they can no longer breed, hence, specation.

The scope of this, or the 'limit' of microevolution could possibly explain the diversity of ALL mammals, with just a few exceptions.

It cannot, however, explain the formation of new organ systems or biochemical pathways.

[WorldsSickestStuff]

Thanks to this creationist vs science war in America, we have youtube full of these brilliant educational videos about paleontology, evolution, species, phylogeny etc. This creationism vs evolution question is not even a discussion in my country, because none of the world except USA, takes creationism serious. But without these fundamentalist christian Americans there wouldn't be this dispute, and probably there wouldn't be load of videos like these, witch I enjoy to watch. Thanks!

[alphaenemy]

Eyem sorrry thaat I innsaulted yew. Cleerlee yew halve bedder insaults then eye.

[Hillsillverr]

and you are a quantum computer running in 8 bit..

[alphaenemy]

Flaud?  lol

Yer a dum.