Quote
Quote
So homology is not always a predictor of relatedness between species. We have known that since bats were removed from their classification as birds.
Looks like you learned from the 'Recap Frauds' thread. You create your own strawman & then say it's wrong.
What strawman? Are you saying that bats were never classified as birds? That's not a strawman. It is a statement of fact and bats aren't avian, so they were reclassified.

Quote
The specific point I was demonstrating was that talkdeceptions claim of "objectivity" in the trees is invalid. Until this is acknowledged, I don't think we need to divert the discussion.
Assuming that is actually your point THIS time, you need to show that changing the trees in the light of new information is subjectivity. Until you show that logical connection instead of just claiming it, your argument falls flat on its face.

You say that changing the evolutionary trees based on new information is subjective.

From dictionary.com:

Quote
sub·jec·tive

1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

I don't see any of those definitions applying to the changing of the evolutionary trees based on new information. Rather than ignoring this discussion, perhaps you can explain your point of view and how it relates to the real definition of subjective.

Quote
Quote
Now, genetics gives insight into relatedness that could not be seen through homology. There may even have been more than one common ancestor for the tree of life and those common ancestors interbred.
Abandoning Darwin already?
How is that abandoning Darwin? Just because some parts of his theory is shown to have some errors then you think we should throw the whole thing away? Baby with the bathwater?

I guess that you would abandon Christianity (assuming you are a Christian) if you were shown an error in the Bible, because if one part is not literally true then the whole thing must be wrong. That may be the way you think but that's not the way the real world works.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke