One thing often presented by evolutionists as evidence for universal common descent evolution is polygenic trees. However, what they often ignore is that they never have the alleged common ancestor between the branches. Furthermore, there does not need to be an actual relationship to be able to make such relational trees. All that is necessary is comparing patterns of what the objects being compared have in common.
When presenting alleged evolutionary transition evolutionists will frequently simply provide a list of animals comprising a list of the animals comprising the alleged transition series. The impression given by such a series is that there is a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between these animals. However, never do such transition series represent actual ancestor-descendant relationships even according to evolutionists.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evolutionary_pathway.jpg
Ultimately, this transitional series is actually based on polygenic trees where all the actual animals are inside branches. Now this still looks impressive and is likely to convince most people who see it, that this is actual evidence of a relationship between these animals. However, if you look closely at this diagram, you will see a very important part of the picture completely missing.
The red circles in this rendition of the whale polygenic tree is the location of what would be the actual common ancestors if any of this was actually real. Consequently, what is clearly missing are the actual ancestors and any actual evidence of a transition. The reason this is the case is that all of these alleged transitions and polygenic trees are created in the minds of paleontologists and do not necessarily represent reality.
Furthermore, when you take away the lines of the polygenic tree which are only inferred by the presupposition of universal common descent, any appearance of evidence for evolution actually happening goes away. Furthermore, when you take away the lines of the polygenic tree which are only inferred by the presupposition of universal common descent, any appearance of evidence for evolution actually happening goes away.
This happens beyond simple little polygenic trees such as these, but it includes even larger so-called family trees. When you look at a polygenic tree of dinosaurs as a whole it seems to fit with universal common descent evolution. However, a closer look at such charts shows how much is evidence in how much is purely inference by evolutionists based on the presupposition of universal common descent. Like all other cases, any apparent evidence for universal common descent evolution completely disappears when you remove the inferences that result from assuming universal common descent. In other words, it is pure circular reasoning to call such charts evidence for universal common descent because they are constructed based on its presupposition.
This is further supported by the fact that you can produce these trees on any group of objects that have similar parts. The above example can be considered an evolutionary polygenic tree going from a knife to a fork. In this case, the intervening steps are actually clearer than in whale evolution, and all of the examples are completely intact. However, they did not evolve but they are the result of being intelligently designed for specific purposes.
In conclusion, polygenic trees cannot be considered evidence for universal common descent evolution. Not only are they made under the presupposition of universal common descent, but any hint of universal common descent easily disappears when you take away the inferred additions. Consequently, claiming them as evidence there's nothing but circular reasoning. Meanwhile, this type of tree could be produced with objects that have been engineered but simply have things in common. This makes polygenic trees fully consistent with intelligent design.
