How is the head?

ABO, Sorry you disagree with the conclusions historians and scientists sometimes draw. However, this certainly does not entitle you to redefine the disciplines of history and science. You are not separating the content from the process.

And I’m not at all sure what this means, “Pseudohistory may fit with evolutions agenda”, please help?

Wikepedia

"Pseudohistory is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism, often involving sensational claims whose acceptance would require rewriting a significant amount of commonly accepted history, and based on methods that depart from standard historiographical conventions. Cryptohistory is a related term, applied to pseudo-historical publications based on occult notions."


A phylogenetic tree, also called and evolutionary tree, is a tree showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities that are believed to have a common ancestor of the descendants.


Pseudohistory can apply to the common evolutionary phylogenetic tree. Evolutionist such as those here claim that the imaginary tree is history or historical but in reality it's nothing more than a belief.

ABO writes "Pseudohistory is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism, often involving sensational claims whose acceptance would require rewriting a significant amount of commonly accepted history, and based on methods that depart from standard historiographical conventions. Cryptohistory is a related term, applied to pseudo-historical publications based on occult notions."

I understand that you do not accept the major facets of the TOE. My point however stands. Science and history are intertwined and you can’t subjectively separate them based on disagreements with aspects of one or the other.

I am afraid the conclusions you have drawn about the TOE fit the term Pseudohistory and not the other way around.

“sensational claims whose acceptance would require rewriting a significant amount of commonly accepted history, and based on methods that depart from standard historiographical conventions”

You may not accept the TOE but it is commonly accepted.

You have misrepresented the term Phylogenetic tree. In biology several methods of comparing ancestral relationships and degrees of divergence are used. One can infer different things from different types of evolutionary trees such as; phenograms, phylogenys, cladograms, and phylogenetic trees.

One thing specifically hypothesized in a phylogenetic tree is ancestral (historical) relationships. Not all evolutionary trees do this. Phylogenetic trees are a component of “standard historiographical conventions” your disagreement with this doesn’t make it a pseudoscience.

I have to disagree. Phylogenetic trees do have great value in many areas. But the supposition that organisms have morphed of hopped from kingdom to kingdom is a belief. Nothing other than hopeful artistry has been produced justifies the claim.

Molecule to man evolution is my point. And it's not commonly accepted by everyone. You'll have to revert to blind faith accept the notion.