Of course they wouldn’t link the paper itself, because even the title seems to create problems for creationism:
Jack W. Oyston et al, Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones, Communications Biology (2022). DOI: 10.1038/s42003-022-03482-x
Abstract
Phylogenetic relationships are inferred principally from two classes of data: morphological and molecular. Currently, most phylogenies of extant taxa are inferred from molecules and when morphological and molecular trees conflict the latter are often preferred. Although supported by simulations, the superiority of molecular trees has rarely been assessed empirically. Here we test phylogenetic accuracy using two independent data sources: biogeographic distributions and fossil first occurrences. For 48 pairs of morphological and molecular trees we show that, on average, molecular trees provide a better fit to biogeographic data than their morphological counterparts and that biogeographic congruence increases over research time. We find no significant differences in stratigraphic congruence between morphological and molecular trees. These results have implications for understanding the distribution of homoplasy in morphological data sets, the utility of morphology as a test of molecular hypotheses and the implications of analysing fossil groups for which molecular data are unavailable.
I suggest you study the heat problem then, and realize that it is physically impossible for the Earth to be 6000 years old.
You are so incredibly confused Jeff. Devolution and genetic entropy would presumably entail the continuing evolution of more and more junk DNA. You are literally contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
Why would that be a prediction of creationism? You measure a difference between two species and what you measure is what you measure. If you’ve measured wrong, the new measurement can either be higher or lower. Neither creationism nor evolution claims it should be any particular number, much less that as you measure more accurately the similarity should decrease or increase.
Have you even thought about this or are you just spewing this nonsense knee-jerk fashion?
The citation after this LOL moment is from the ENV site, which I won’t read, but apparently whoever wrote it is as tragically ignorant as Jeff. If one wanted to write accurately about the “1% difference” and when it was “overturned,” one could read this paper from twenty years ago, published in an actual journal:
You haven’t presented any evidence that you ever studied it. You only provide evidence that you read misleading rhetoric about it from those who don’t study it.
It isn’t a lot to read, and quote mining is both boring and dishonest. Why do you think we would be interested in deceptive rhetoric and quotes?
Sorry, but again you’re starting with deliberately misleading hearsay. Anyone who has studied this would carefully qualify the percentage, specifying how it was measured.
No.
I don’t know of any data supporting genetic entropy. What people say is not the data.
I don’t know of any. To describe junk DNA accurately, you’d have to note that as a negative definition, some DNA previously classified as junk will predictably found to be functional. Here are some accurate predictions:
IDcreationists will continue to deceptively/ignorantly present finding function for 0.0001% of junk DNA as some sort of evidence that junk DNA (~75% of the human genome) doesn’t exist.
IDcreationists will continue to deceptively/ignorantly conflate junk DNA with noncoding DNA.
Despite claiming that there is no such thing as junk DNA, not a single IDcreationist will bother to study it.
What would you bet on those three, having done two of them in your post, Jeff?
…and he goes on to link to an EN&ST post as if it were actually science. Here’s the most stupid part of the article (competition was fierce):
The most absurd part of this is that they are shocked — shocked, I tell you — to discover that human and chimp genomes both contain large indels, necessitating the addition of gaps to the alignment, and are further surprised to discover that insertions can’t be aligned between species.
The second most absurd part is to suppose that an indel of, say, 1000 bases counts as 1000 differences between species instead of just one. Related to that, the notion implies that there is only one way to assess genetic distance and that other ways are therefore wrong. The previous distance of 1.23% (1% is rounded off from this) is still valid, as it represents the average percentage of site differences in aligned sequences. If you count indels, you get a different number, and if you count each base in the indel as a separate difference you get a different and biologically meaningless number.
A prediction about you: you will continue to post nearly content-free gleanings from creationist web sites and ignore all substantive responses, preferring to wallow in smug ignorance. But I’m prepared to be shown wrong
Given that it’s still not clear what you mean by studying or researching these topics, I’m going to go out on a limb that you’ve never actually studied it in any substantive manner.
It doesn’t look like a topic you ever studied at all. You were put to a challenge here 4 years ago. I have to assume now that you’re back more convinced than ever that evolution is false, you must have alighted upon a solution to the challenge, right?
Here’s a prediction. Creationist apologists like Philip Bell and Casey Luskin will continue to lie, misrepresent and make unsubstantiated claims about evolution.
Credulous true believers will continue consuming this vacuous claptrap uncritically, and will believe that consuming it constitutes “study” and “research”.
Few outside the creationist echo chamber will even notice.
Science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, will continue on as though none of this ‘let’s pretend that we’re doing science’ even happened – as it’s no more consequential than a young kid pretending to do chemistry with water colored with food dye.
Admittedly, all this is blindingly obvious – but it seems apt for the rabbit-hole this thread is descending down.
That’s true, and this prediction underlies a very important test for evolution that strongly confirms universal common ancestry.
This directly tests the evolutionary ‘tree’ model against the creationist ‘orchard’ model, contrary to creationist claims that they’re only based on “different worldviews”.
I took Jeff to be speaking about a change in the results of scientific investigations (not a change in similarity due to evolutionary divergence), in that previous numbers reported for human-chimp similarity would be overturned and the differences be found to be greater than those hitherto measured. For some reason he thinks this is a “prediction” of creationism. Which makes no logical sense whatsoever for the reasons stated.
Indeed. If God wanted to, he could create two species as different phenotypically from one another as chimps are from humans, with their genomes differing by 1% or 5% or 0.001%, or whatever.
Evolution (or, more specifically, common ancestry) also does not make any predictions regarding the degree of similarity between humans and chimps. However, it does predict the observed nested hierarchy of genomes. And that prediction has been 100% confirmed.
Many if not all creationist “predictions” aren’t predictions at all. They are simply contrarianisms. If scientific data or research says one thing, creationists seem to feel the need to come up with something contrarian simply for the sake of it.
There is absolutely no reason for creationists to make any claims about genetic similarity between humans and chimps (or other species) other than to contradict the idea of common ancestry.