Yes, your assessment is correct here. I never had any interests because Phylogenetic trees only show that there are biochemical similarities between all living things. THAT’S IT. The attempt to use this as evidence for common ancestry would turn it into a circular argument because you have to assume common ancestry in order to prove it. This is one of the reasons why it is the weakest form of evidence for Universal common Descent.
This leads me to explain the other reason why it is the weakest form of evidence, which is related to the first reason…
NO, they are seeking a pattern and making the connection in your mind rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. They are choosing to interpret it that way without actually proving the assumptions they depend on to support their conclusions. I can easily interpret it as evidence for common design:
If this all sounds like I am being dismissive of their work and your support of it, then you would be right. But, you are being just as dismissive of my common design model and won’t inform yourself on the matter…
I spent an enormous amount of time crafting a Universal common designer theory in the last topic I created that preceded this topic and model. You made no effort to make the same contribution on it. For this reason, I have no desire to read your sources that supposedly support your claims since you displayed the same disinterest in engaging the previous topic. I made it very clear that this topic will be an add on to what I argued before. So there is nothing about my model that is ad hoc.
I would have been less dismissive of that form of evidence if it was just used to support limited common ancestry, such as ancestry between apes and humans. But, when you suggests that this common ancestry applies to all livings, then it requires extraordinary evidence. As I told @Puck_Mendelssohn, using phylogenetics arguments to support common ancestry leads you to a circular argument and/or is susceptible to alternative explanations, such as common design.
Now, you could support Universal ancestry through the fossil record, and experiments showing how random mutations can produce potent changes, and abiogenesis. This is because the evidence is proportional to the claim and actually shows how universal common ancestry was achieved or could be achieved. I noticed you guys never attempted to present these types of evidence. Obviously, it must be because you know it hurts your case more than it helps to bring it up.
Yes, it is actually asking a lot because I made it very clear that observations and experiments are the only way we can make better conclusions about which species is separate species versus a separate kind.
Well, I gave you the definition of species and kinds… From there, we can apply those definitions to the fossil record, which happens to support common design NOT common descent.
I already showed you involving the Rose study, which vindicates the unique claims in Genesis.