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.
Nobody thus far has argued that homology is "
always a predictor of relatedness between species."
It is well-known that evolutionists apply homology very selectively. They even invented "parallel evolution" as an excuse to do so. In order to obfuscate, they also call it "convergent evolution".
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.
I have demonstrated that the trees do not agree, and the advocates of different trees aren't close to agreement. The non-tree tree doesn't even have a common ancestor, so traditional Darwinists will have to make a major concession if it's to be widely adopted.
The "objective" tree myth relies upon all tree makers having the same information and interpreting it the same way. Clearly this isn't going to happen. It never has.
What have you submitted as evidence in support of "objective" trees?
You say that changing the evolutionary trees based on new information is subjective.
I say the trees don't match. Talk deceptions is arguing for the existence of "objective" trees. Better to quibble with them over definitions. But they don't seem to be here...
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
This works, I notice.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
And this too.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
Oh, I think this is the best match yet!
I don't see any of those definitions applying to the changing of the evolutionary trees based on new information.
Your use of the plural "trees" indicates agreement that more than one tree was involved. Maybe you should try to find a consensus among yourself before arguing too much.
Rather than ignoring this discussion, perhaps you can explain your point of view and how it relates to the real definition of subjective.
Perhaps I hadn't considered ignoring this discussion. Should I?
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?
No more
single common ancestor? That's been part of the religion for quite some time. It's also used to distinguish the "true believers" from ID.
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?
What baby. And that's not bathwater - it really needs to be flushed.
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.
I choose not to divert off topic to wild speculations.
