Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Similar Are Phylogenetic Trees?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 JerryJohnson

JerryJohnson

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 June 2020 - 04:58 AM

Hi all,
 
I read that phylogenetic trees are one of the strongest evidence of evolution, because we get a very similar trees for different genes and proteins. But I can’t find anywhere ANY concrete/specific numbers. How many phylogenetic trees where constructed so far? 1000? 50,000? a million? How similar are they to one another? 99%? 95%? 80%?
 
I would really like to see some numbers, where can I find them?
 
I’m asking this because I came across a video claiming that phylogenetic trees do NOT support evolution.
 
So, if you have some numbers it will really help.
 
Thanks.
 


#2 Mutex

Mutex

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 20 June 2020 - 07:36 AM

I would just suggest you don't bother considering the 'scientific reasoning' from places like 'Discovery Science', The first thing they do in that video is equation the development of a car with 'evolution or design', and how many fingers you have pointing to a common desinger. Then they accuse "Darwinists" of doing the same thing as they are doing with a car to prove evolution. (they use the car to 'prove' a common designer). 

 

People who study evolution do not spend their time trying to prove or disprove evolution, that's not even a thing, it IS evolution, and what we observe on any scale from Phylogany to DNA supports that conclusion. This is in stark contrast to intelligent design that has exactly ZERO evidence to support that claim.. 

 

Live evolves, cars do not.. (I also do not really care much for the video format, far too much smugness). 



#3 JerryJohnson

JerryJohnson

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 June 2020 - 02:41 PM

I would just suggest you don't bother considering the 'scientific reasoning' from places like 'Discovery Science', The first thing they do in that video is equation the development of a car with 'evolution or design', and how many fingers you have pointing to a common desinger. Then they accuse "Darwinists" of doing the same thing as they are doing with a car to prove evolution. (they use the car to 'prove' a common designer). 

 

People who study evolution do not spend their time trying to prove or disprove evolution, that's not even a thing, it IS evolution, and what we observe on any scale from Phylogany to DNA supports that conclusion. This is in stark contrast to intelligent design that has exactly ZERO evidence to support that claim.. 

 

Live evolves, cars do not.. (I also do not really care much for the video format, far too much smugness). 

 

Yes I know, but still I would like to have an answer for my question.

 

If you can't compare between different trees and you can't say in how much percents they differ from one another, then how can you (I mean the science) say that they are strong evidence of evolution?
 
If each scientist can come up with another tree for the same animals, and you cannot compare this trees then what's the point? One will put bears on the same branch together with cats and dogs, and another researcher will put bears on the same branch with Giraffes and tigers.
 
So what's the point? How is it an evidence of evolution?

Edited by JerryJohnson, 20 June 2020 - 02:42 PM.


#4 montgomery

montgomery

    Suspended twice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 01 July 2020 - 10:36 AM

 

Yes I know, but still I would like to have an answer for my question.

 

If you can't compare between different trees and you can't say in how much percents they differ from one another, then how can you (I mean the science) say that they are strong evidence of evolution?
 
If each scientist can come up with another tree for the same animals, and you cannot compare this trees then what's the point? One will put bears on the same branch together with cats and dogs, and another researcher will put bears on the same branch with Giraffes and tigers.
 
So what's the point? How is it an evidence of evolution?

 

Can you provide some evidence of a couple of specific scientists who disagree? Let's say Richard Dawkins for one example because most of us recognize him as mainstream. This would indicate the caliber and credibility of some scientist that opposes Dawkins. And of course, when or if you do that, direct us to the specific branch in which there is disagreement.

 

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that Mutex brushed you off too quickly. I may live to regret that but what the Hey?