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.
Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't think I've said anything close to that.
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".
You left out one part. "Seeing that bats and birds fly, realizing they couldn't be closely related, and
assuming they had evolved, evolutionists concluded etc." That'd be more like it.
Can you provide an example where homology was used "selectively" in opposition to the evidence.
Perhaps later.
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?
No. I said anything can be arranged in a tree. Talkdeceptions agrees. They then claim evotrees are "objective" because they all match. I say they don't match, and I've presented evidence.
If you think this leads to the conclusion that "the entire concept of evolution is invalid", you're getting a little ahead of what I've said regarding the trees. Or maybe evolutionism requires these trees to match & I'm missing it. Either way, they don't match. Talkdeceptions is wrong. They're not objective.
Are these evolutionary trees concurrent and have they been published in refereed scientific journals?
I don't know. How often do refereed scientific journals publish trees?
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.
It isn't the same thing. By the definition of "objective" given by evolutionists themselves, the trees must match. They don't. They never have. The "objective tree" is a myth and a lie. It has never been true. If evolutionism needs this lie in order to survive, fine with me - let them both die.
Objective means that it can be demonstrated to more than one person.
That's a new definiton & one that won't work in your favor.
All trees are then equally objective & Talkdeceptions argument fails, for there is no tree composed of any type of object that cannot be shown to several persons.
Contention over how the trees look is not reason to say that species are unrelated.
Make up your mind. Earlier you made out that it threatened the "entire concept of evolution".
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.
If there is more than one tree, what are you arguing about? Why are you defending the "there's only one tree" lie? Loyalty to talkdeceptions?
