[allmendream]

“the cladogram is used to prove the assumption that its construction is based upon” c-y-c

No, as I pointed out to you, the DNA analysis provides evidentiary support of the assumption of a clade based upon a shared morphological characteristic.

“The formation of the group is based upon shared evolutionary traits and descent is shown by the grouping?” c-y-c

Once again, NO. A clade group is formed upon the presence of a shared ‘evolutionary trait’ and descent is accepted or rejected based upon DNA evidence.

“Cladistics is nothing more than subjective classification, subjective because it's based upon the classifier's assumptions. Assumptions of evolutionary lineage, assumptions of characteristics lost or gained, seeing membership in a class defined by the classifier.” c-y-c

DNA analysis is not subjective. Either two species are more similar in DNA to each other than to a third species or they are not.

” What more do I need to show that that what you said was incorrect than that cladograms are ACTUALLY confirmed by DNA analysis?” allmendream

“How about something besides just your unsupported “I know more than you” assertions?” c-y-c

So I showed you an ACTUAL study that used DNA to construct a cladogram. and yet still my assertions are “unsupported”. And now instead of misrepresenting this field of science, you have now moved on to misrepresenting your own statements.

My citation had EVERYTHING to do with what you said. You said cladograms were both constructed and confirmed using morphological data and that is simply NOT the case, as my citation showed you.

Creationists must misrepresent science out of necessity.

[count-your-change]

““What is Cladistics
Lynne M. Clos
.........Derived characters are advanced traits which only appear in some members of the group. Cladistics is based on the assumption that the appearance of derived characters gives clues to evolutionary relationships. In our example, a derived character for some mammals might be loss of the tail, which occurs in the great apes and man. It is assumed that loss of the tail occurred only once, in the common ancestor of apes and man, and that none of us has one because we inherited that trait from our common ancestor. Thus if mammals are separated into groups which do and which don't have a tail, shown by a fork on the evolutionary diagram (cladogram), this represents the point at which a new species evolved which didn't have a tail. Man and the great apes are assumed to have descended from this species (which may or may not remain undiscovered at the present time).”

No DNA necessary, as this NON-CREATIONIST POINTS OUT.

Darwinists not Creationists must misrepresent science out of necessity. See your own citation.

Tell me again about those courses you say you took. No, don't, I said I've no more time for your erroneous assertions and I don't.