Evolutionary trees are unable to prove the validity of evolutionary scenarios.

Evolutionary trees are unable to prove the validity of evolutionary scenarios. A recent paper published in Nature Stelianus Luca and Matthew Pennell[1] revealed the fragility of evolutionary scenarios inferred from the evolutionary trees of existing species, and mathematically proved that there are a myriad of alternative scenarios that could explain the same evolutionary tree. Evolutionary scientists try to infer the biological past and how this past led to the present. They rely on estimating past rates of speciation and extinction, that is, when new species arose and when earlier species became extinct, these rates determine the number of contemporary species. But since "fossils are rare or non-existent for the vast majority of species, evolutionists turn to phylogeny instead in estimating the rates of speciation and extinction." For example, there are 6,600 species of songbirds, more than half of all extant bird species, suggesting to evolutionary scientists that these birds have high speciation rates compared to other birds. But it is also possible to assume that they have low extinction rates! "We have demonstrated that for any diversity scenario there is an infinite number of alternative diversity scenarios that can, equivalently, generate any existing tree of time." Consider evolutionary trees that describe regression patterns within a group of contemporary species (pictured, a and b). A phylogeny tree is easy to construct over time; it records the number of strains increasing up to the point in time on the tree where the contemporary species now live (pictured c). λ=b-d But the difficulty lies in estimating b and d, because if we have only the number of species that survive in the present, as in our example of six thousand six hundred birds, any pair of b and d that gives the same value will produce the same strain curve over time and there are an infinite number of such pairs. Mark Beagle writes in the news and opinion section of this paper in Nature that "Luca and Bennell's finding will discourage evolutionists who are looking for a connection between past speciation and extinction levels with ... historical events".[2] He shows the circular logic in which evolutionists fall into (circular logic is an intellectual fallacy in which a person begins to assume what they ultimately try to prove) and says "assumptions can be made about how speciation and speciation change with each other over time." Darwin based his theory of evolution on natural selection, or in other words evolution by natural selection. Natural selection is a process that leads to adaptive adaptations within groups over time, and these adaptations are referred to as microevolution, and can be observed in nature and in the laboratory. But macroevolution, which is controversial, will lead to the emergence of species, races, families and all major taxonomic divisions, and the emergence of complex organs such as vertebrates. The natural world is characterized by gaps and discontinuities. Fossils were hypothetical and did not live up to evolutionary aspirations, which led the famous paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould to publish his theory with his colleague Nils Eldredge on the punctuated equilibrium; in which they asserted that fossils do not show the gradual progression of evolution over time assumed by Darwin, but rather appear as discontinuous points. But as we see in this paper, these scenarios are questionable, and we need to go back to the real fossil data, as the authors state: "Our results also confirm that fossil data are still crucial in answering some of the big evolution questions."[1] This brings us back to the dilemma of the lack of scientific evidence for the continuous sequence pattern that evolution requires. Will we remain in the dogmatic capitulation in which the proponents of Darwinian evolution languish? Or do we pay attention to the fact that all the scenarios described as facts in textbooks are only speculative assumptions? [1] Louca, S., Pennell, M.W. Extant timetrees are consistent with a myriad of diversification histories. Nature (2020). [2] Mark Pagel, Evolutionary trees can’t reveal speciation and extinction rates. Nature (2020). [3] Reznick DN, Ricklefs RE. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature. 2009;457(7231):837-42. - Dr. Mohammed Al-Qadi — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2020-09-13 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/الأشجار-التطورية-عاجزة-عن-إثبات-صحة-السيناريوهات-التطورية