It is evident that evolutionism is based on faith
That's incorrect, but let's stipulate to it: the theory of evolution has no empirical support, its claims are all false or unfalsifiable, and it can only be believed by faith.
Now it's on an equal footing with your beliefs, not vanquished or replaced. Go ahead and pick either one and believe it. There's no basis for choosing either when decisions are made like that.
I guess you don't see a problem with trying to undermine the science by describing it in the terms that describe your own beliefs. Although the following discusses describing atheism in religious terms, it applies here as well:
"
I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte
I wonder how a subjective, speculative, and tentative classification system can logically clarify the phylogenetic connections among various species.
I'm afraid you'll need to keep on wondering if you prefer to not get an education in the area. I hope you know that taxonomy is not based only in comparative anatomy. If you go and get that education, you can learn how comparing genomes helps establish relationships and the time of evolutionary bifurcations. If university and university textbooks aren't accessible or comprehensible to you, try an Internet course from a reputable teaching source with no religious agenda. Here are two:
80+ Taxonomy Online Courses for 2024 | Explore Free Courses & Certifications | Class Central
https://www.udemy.com/course/biology-biological-classification/?
Or, if you only want a few sentences of overview for orientation absent much actual education, try AI. asked AI, "How is genetics used in taxonomy?" Here is part of the answer:
1. **Molecular Phylogenetics**: This method uses genetic data to construct evolutionary trees (phylogenies) that depict the relationships between different species. By comparing sequences from specific genes or whole genomes, scientists can infer how closely related different organisms are. For example, studies using mitochondrial DNA have helped clarify relationships among various bird species, leading to revisions in their taxonomic classification.
2. **DNA Barcoding**: This technique involves sequencing a short, standardized region of the genome (often from mitochondrial DNA) to identify and classify species. DNA barcoding has been particularly useful in identifying cryptic species—organisms that appear morphologically similar but are genetically distinct. For instance, DNA barcoding has revealed hidden diversity among butterfly species that were previously thought to be a single species.
if this system relies on assumed phylogenetic links without supporting evidence
It doesn't.
The recurring issue is the lack of evidence, the missing facts
Missing for you, not the scientifically literate.
thinking that shifting the conversation to "show me God" lends credibility to their doctrine.
The scientific community doesn't need to address the god issue at all. In contrast to the creationist, who cannot offer any support at all for his beliefs and so feels forced to attack the science, the scientific argument is in support of its claims.
Now THAT's shifting the conversation. The creationist depends on it because there is nothing that he can say to defend creationism directly. The empiricist doesn't need to address gods at all to support the science.
But yeah, if you want to communicate with an empiricist and invoke the existence of a god as fact and expect him to take it seriously, you'll need to present compelling evidence in support of your beliefs, which you can't do.
Here's a useful observation: False and unfalsifiable claims can NEVER be successfully supported with evidence and valid reasoning, and correct ideas can never be falsified. The creationist cannot defend his own beliefs nor successfully rebut the science. Unless that changes, that makes the science correct and the mythology false.
Modern apes have nothing to do with modern humans on any evolutionist "educated" mind.
Once again, your own limitations reflect only on you and the anti-intellectual tendencies of your belief system - not what others have learned. Other people can understand what you have no interest in learning.
No one knows what are those common ancestors between humans and apes
Sure we do. Human and nonhuman apes share a common ancestral ape that would be more monkeylike than modern apes, and the last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps would be more chimplike than man. The were bipedal omnivores who swung through branches in jungles and knuckle-walked when on the land.
Do you know what sent man off in a unique direction in ape evolution? It was the loss of those trees. The ancestors of modern gorillas and chimps lived in those trees as their modern non-human descendants still do (they are arboreal), but our ancestors were the ones whose jungles became savanna forcing them to become bipedal, terrestrial, relatively hairless omnivores and cooperative hunters with binocular vision and free, articulate hands to wield tools. Somehow, this conferred language on these terrestrial ape hunters
I left the orangutans out because they're Asian, and what I described occurred in Africa.
Do you know that bananas share 60% DNA with humans, don't you? If I thought like an evolutionist I would believe that this is why my nephew has a banana face.
You think like a creationist. If you thought like a scientist, you'd understand that bananas and humans like all life have a common ancestor and are made of mostly the same ingredients that operate mostly the same way reproducing DNA which is transcribed then translated on cytoplasmic ribosomes to generate the proteins that regulate metabolism. Because of that commonality, we have about 30% of our genes in common with a yeast cell, 60% with a banana, and over 90% with monkeys.
