More Darwinian Logic: Cladogram Methodology

Evolutionists argue, “Life does not progress up a hierarchical ladder from “low” to “high” but is a branching bush with numerous lineages splitting apart and coexisting simultaneously.” Darwin had a concept of a bush from the beginning, and the only diagram that appeared in his first edition.  Continuing with the evolutionist argument, “For example, apes and humans split from a common ancestor 7 million years ago and both lineages are still around.”

A question comes to mind, where is the common ancestor that was supposedly alive seven million years ago? It’s neither living nor in the fossil record so how do they know it had ever existed?

“For this reason the concept of “missing link” is a misleading one. A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another. It merely needs to record aspects of evolutionary change that occurred as one lineage split from another.”

This is where Cladogram Methodology comes into play. Between 385 and 360 million years ago, they say, “a lineage of fleshy-finned vertebrates evolved four legs and, eventually, the ability to walk on land. The steps of this transition are recorded in the fossils, some of which are shown here. Many other lines of evidence, including stratigraphy, comparative anatomy, and genetic comparisons among modern organisms, support this hypothesis.”

It is interesting to note, this defender of evolution uses “hypothesis” which would be the correct science term for what he is describing. However, he is not establishing the concept of ancestor-descendant rather the animals are arranged subjectively by only similarities. You have a drawing of nine different animals with lines that give the reader the impression the animals evolved from a common ancestor.

Does a diagram establish phylogenetic relationships? There are many examples of ray-finned fish, lungfish and living tetrapods as well as fossils. So the evidence exists with the tips of the cladogram. However, do we have evidence of the common ancestor that gave rise to the living tetrapods and fossil tulerpeton, as required by the intersection of their lines? The answer is no, we do not! So the diagram is not establishing phylogenetic relationships.

All we have is an arrangement of  animals which includes, fossil and living, into a sequence according to various characteristics. This is where creationists differ with evolutionists, a cladogram does not prove the existence of a common ancestor regardless if you think evolution is fact or not. They use Darwinian logic quite often in their arguments and it’s quite flawed and of course is not scientific either but rather it’s displaying a story through a cladogram that replaces physical evidence or lack thereof.


One thought on “More Darwinian Logic: Cladogram Methodology

  1. Do you have a more complete theory? You are right, this does not prove evolutionary theory, but this “hypothesis”, as you call it, is the one which explains best the facts about the natural world.

    If we someday find a really serious flaw in evolutionary theory, and a new Darwin proposes a more complete theory which fits the evidence, we will welcome it. Evolution is science, we accept it because it fits the evidence. Creationism is religious dogma, you presuppose that it happened, and then look at the evidence to confirm your point. Is that science? Not for me. I prefer the truth over the consolation of fantasy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s