All About Biblical Kinds

quote:

---

I have a Biblically-based phylogeny here:
Baramin - BibleStrength

---

No, you don’t. That’s just an attempt at a taxonomy. A phylogeny is based on ancestry, it’s not just a system of classification.

What I said was not about evolution per se. I said, "It's easy to "defeat" your enemy if you don't actually confront him." If you claim you can "defeat" evolution, you have to confront evolution where it is - i.e. you have to confront the actual Theory of Evolution, not a strawman that you've made up in your head.

I explain it in my falsification article.Evolution is falsified!ALL ABOUT BIBLICAL KINDS (AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge Accepted) | Zenodo

Well, that classification is very hard to learn. Try mine in the OP.But, EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED, too!ALL ABOUT BIBLICAL KINDS (AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge Accepted) | Zenodo

You are using circular logic, as ancestry assumes evolution from common ancestor.

quote:

---

You are using circular logic, as ancestry assumes evolution from common ancestor.

---

Well that’s a dramatic failure of comprehension on your part. Pointing out that a phylogeny requires ancestry is a simple matter of definitions.

I will add "circular logic" to the growing list of terms you do not understand. The list is getting quite impressive.
Maybe you should define the term as you understand it, so we can correct your misunderstanding.

Do you have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a match between the suspect's DNA and DNA at a crime scene?We observe a phylogeny. That matches what we would expect from common ancestry. Because we get a match between expectation and observation, we conclude ancestry.

Phylogeny, with phylos = race and geneia = origin.Common ancestry is not required for phylogeny.

Will common ancestry produce a nested hierarchy?Is there any reason why we would expect to see a nested hierarchy if separate creation is true?