How similar are phylogenetic trees?

Hello Jerry. Welcome to EvC.I’m not sure you are understanding what phylogenetic trees are. They are graphics of the proposed evolutionary relationships among closely related species based on some specific criteria. Honest disagreements among the scientists making these trees often results in multiple different trees proposed for the same lineages. And the scope of the tree (how many different lineages or organisms are to be represented) depends on the purpose of the tree. There are tress limited to just a few hundred species of beetle and there are trees made to represent the entire class of mammalia.It doesn’t matter how many trees there are presently since the criteria can differ from one graph to another and each needs to be updated as new information is assessed. There is also the issue that there are so many lineages of organisms on this planet that have yet to be found let alone charted. I don’t have numbers for you but I can imagine there are 10s of thousands of such graphs drawn past and present are already in the books with many millions more yet to be studied. The same goes for homologies in genetic studiesEach one is unique as to the lineage and the criteria for analysis. But the one great big overwhelming similarity among ALL such trees is the concept of the nested hierarchy. The concept that organisms appearing later in the tree are inclusive (on the same related branching structure) of all the species that came before.Here is one such tree meant to represent all life: Here is one dealing in hemoglobin: Here is one for flys: You can see the wide scope in subject as well as presentation.Again, Jerry, welcome to the forum. Stick around. Tell us about yourself.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Just an aside, please, JerryIf you are out to learn about reality I suggest you avoid the Discovery Institute (maker of that video). They lie.Just like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and their creation ministries, they lie. Even when their lies are exposed and even acknowledged by themselves they continue to use the same lies over again. They have ulterior motives and the truth is not among them.

I can understand your confusion. You are looking at phylogenetic trees as some absolute. They are not. They are hypothesis.Scientists may disagree whether one species of beetle is more or less closely related to another but they all classify both of those beetles as sub-order Myxophaga instead of sub-order Polyphaga. It's sorta almost the same as some long lost relatives disagreeing on who was born first, you or your brother. Everyone knows you both are from the same family born of the same parents. Except instead of you and your brother we're dealing with species of bugs.The importance in getting the right bug in its proper slot in relation to all the other bugs is one of accuracy and pride at being an entomologist and having all your colleagues agreeing with you.And while there may still be some controversy over some placements in the tree they are in the deep fine details. The more robust pictures we have today, especially with the advent of genetic information to build from these last 20 years, have pretty much solidified the major relationships.The importance to the field of evolution is in the nested hierarchies and the evolutionary relationships revealed. We can see with great confidence that these 1500 species of Polyphaga are quite far removed from the 280 species of Carnivora.Probably a bad example.The fact that relationships of organisms fall among species, genus, family, order and beyond, when accurately portrayed is one of the strongest evidences of the theory of evolution and the determination of common ancestry.What did you think the phylogenetic tree would tell us? What were you looking for that might be missing?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Not only should they be very similar they *must* be very similar. They may not be exact in every detail but very similar is a no-brainer since we already know the chemistry of life is exceptionally consistent across related lineages.I was talking more phylogenetic trees based upon morphology in cases where we do not have chemistry/genetics to assess. Old fossils. Lineages among the dinoserians for example. There, professional honest disagreements still rage but, as I said, they are in the fine details, like, which bone shape is closest to this other bone shape. Making those kinds of trees takes a practiced eye with many years experience.

I don't think you are going to find the kind of comparison listings you seem to be looking for without doing a whole lot of work.I suggest, if you have Google Scholar or equivalent, searching molecular phylogenetics and evolution. The results will show you how wide and deep the field has become.Then, if you are so inclined, you can go through hundreds of those studies you find and compare the phylogenies they present.But, maybe just reading on the general topic would satisfy your need. Like, Straggler said above, go to Molecular phylogenetics - Wikipedia then google your way around the net to your hearts content.