Gosh, I'm just not seeing any "Personal belittling, name calling, false accusations, cherry picked 'gotcha!' phrases, straw men, well poisoning, and ad hominem" here, and none of it is offered as "evidence for common descent." You ignore or dismiss such evidence as being "too long".
Did you not write this?
HERE is the context:
This was presented earlier, and i touched on it, but since the 'looks like!' morphology is one of the main arguments for common descent, it deserves another look.
1. It is primarily circular reasoning. Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself.
2. "Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes. Certain haplogroups, like canidae, mentioned earler, HAVE the evidence of descendancy. But to extrapolate that to all living things is flawed. It is not the case. There is NO GENETIC EVIDENCE of descendancy in cross genetic architectures. There is real genetic evidence of descendancy within canidae, felidae, equus, etc, but nothing to suggest any of them came from, or are becoming, something else. The 'high genetic walls,' that the hecklers love to ridicule, PREVENT any departure from the parent architecture. That is repeatable, observable, scientific FACT.
You wrote that, so it is not a false accusation. No belittling or anything else - well, expect of course what you do to yourself by claiming decades of study and to "know the material".
"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."
Not out of context, not a gotcha, etc. Just YOUR words, on a subject YOU claim to know all about, writing completely error-filled nonsense.
"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."
"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."
Same thing -
YOU writing on a subject YOU pretend to know all about. No strawman, no ad hominem, no cherry picking - heck, pretty much every one of your 'science' posts have errors in them, so no cherry picking is necessary.
That you are wrong is YOUR problem, and my pointing out your error is just that. If you feel belittled, stop the pretense and stop writing about things you do not actually understand as well as you think you do. Dunning and Kruger wrote some papers about this.
That post was a gem for other reasons, too:
And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed. But leaping to 'common descent!', based on the diversity within canidae is unwarranted, unscientific, and unbelievable..
Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc. The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together. Canidae, for the most part, consists of the single haplogroup of genetic commonality and evidenced descendancy. Genetics has replaced and updated the old morphological taxonomic classifications, which were one limited to 'looks like!' correlation. Now, we have hard science, not just speculation.
Amazing....
"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."
But what is the manly conservative to do? Whine line a millennial snowflake, or buck up like the macho science expert man he pretends to be on the internet, face the facts, admit your many errors, and move on?
I guess we have our answer.
