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."
Yet you are saying that Darwin's and the early evolution taxonomists' errant method of using only homology to classify animals in an evolutionary tree somehow makes the theory of evolution that much more invalid.
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".
Seeing that bats fly and birds fly, then realizing they couldn't be closely related, evolutionists concluded that there must be more than one pathway in the evolution of flying animals. Using evidence to come to a conclusion is not "inventing".
Can you provide an example where homology was used "selectively" in opposition to the evidence.
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 declare the entire concept of evolution is invalid based on differing conclusions by scientists on how the species are interrelated? Are these evolutionary trees concurrent and have they been published in refereed scientific journals?
Should I patently declare that Christianity is invalid because of differing opinions among Christians as to the doctrines required by the Bible? It would be the same thing that you are doing to the theory of evolution.
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...
Objective means that it can be demonstrated to more than one person. Contention over how the trees look is not reason to say that species are unrelated. Even AIG claims that species are interrelated because they couldn't figure out how to fit all the currently existing species on the ark. So they used the word "kind" in the bible to make up their own sort of superevolution that happened after the ark landed.
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.
I don't have to worry about consensus. I will wait for new evidence to help with the relatedness problem. Some trees will fail to match the evidence and some will continue....maybe only one will result.
Perhaps I hadn't considered ignoring this discussion. Should I?
It's a better option than your use of snide remarks and implied insults.
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.
Even if there is more than one common ancestor shown, how does that abandon all of Darwin's theory. As I said below.
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.
You have yet to provide sufficient evidence to declare the chemical composition of that water.
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.
You're right, sorry. We'll just stick with your on topic wild speculations.
