GH, the point is as I stated. If you understand what the other poster is attempting to say, address the content and move on. Choosing to deride them on spelling, grammar, syntax, phraseology, punctuation, et al is merely a hobgoblin. Move on.<quoted text>
I find it interesting that you word your idea like that.
It is very illuminating, as such.
I find it interesting that you said: "...the phylogenies are adjusted to accomodate that information..."
"...the information is adjusted to accomodate that/those phylogenies..."
To say "the phylogenies are adjusted to accomodate", suggests that the phenomena itself is modified for/at 'your' convenience.
Thats why I dont find evolutionary data to be credible.
You are the ones making your own sense of what is occurring.
You fabricate your own meaning and knowledge.
However, this is not what you attempted. Your proposal is that phylogenies should not be updated to fit new information, but rather that information should be "adjusted to accomodate" existing classifications. A telling point, indeed. One can easily detect your predilections for dogma and doctrine, even if understanding it is (thankfully) beyond my ken.