Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

For reference and easier Googling, the science of generating evolutionary trees is known as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Using DNA sequence data to generate the trees is molecular phylogeny.

The standard of evidence I'll be discussing is reasonable doubt. Even that's pretty broad, but if your argument hinges on "possible," you should be able to at least quantify that.

I've generated phylogenies using online tools previously and discussed them in this post. I tried to start a tutorial in this thread. If someone wants to discuss how to actually use the tools and data, feel free to ask questions in the tutorial thread and I'll pick it back up.

This debate question is a response to this comment.

[Difflugia]

Um, the question was, how am I keeping people from Christ by rejecting God's hand in evolution, when I stated that a belief in evolution doesn't effect the Gospel?

Not sure how this question was addressed, even after I read St. Augustine's quote 3-4 times.

That seems a bit disingenuous on your part. Remember these?

"Because as soon as you mention evolution, I guarantee the Creator of the universe looks at you with anger, by trading what he did with his words and with his own hands, and fabricating it with a fanciful, naturalistic voodoo."

"Your theory of evolution contradicts scripture, for reasons I've already given."

"It is indeed a false teaching and you are borderline on some heresy stuff."

That sounds exactly like what Augustine was frustrated with and addressing. There truly is nothing new under the Sun.

You're adding to the unnecessary convolution, Diff.

[Clownboat]

That idol is what turns away many people who might otherwise come to Him, and it destroys the faith of many who were taught to worship the idol.

And this is no laughing matter.

Reminds me of something Samuel Taylor Coleridge said:
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity and end in loving himself better than all."

What happens with some such people is that they will make an idol out of the Bible and their own interpretation of it which they will cling to as if it is themselves. They will fight among themselves because what they are really doing is self promotion, each of them seeking to claim to speak for God.

[SiNcE_1985]

That seems a bit disingenuous on your part. Remember these?

"Because as soon as you mention evolution, I guarantee the Creator of the universe looks at you with anger, by trading what he did with his words and with his own hands, and fabricating it with a fanciful, naturalistic voodoo."

"Your theory of evolution contradicts scripture, for reasons I've already given."

"It is indeed a false teaching and you are borderline on some heresy stuff."

That sounds exactly like what Augustine was frustrated with and addressing. There truly is nothing new under the Sun.

You're adding to the unnecessary convolution, Diff.

1. Did any of Augustine's writings make it into the Biblical canon? No.

2. So, are we to look at Augustine's writings as sacred, holy, or authoritative? No.

Now that those two^ are out the way, again, like I said; the theory of evolution contradicts scripture, and any teachings that contradicts, you know, the actual canonized, sacred, holy, and authoritative texts, then it should be rejected.

Which is what I'm doing as it relates to the theory of evolution; rejecting it.

Now, enjoy your popcorn with that.

[SiNcE_1985]

It contradicts some people's interpretation of Scripture, but that's an entirely different thing.

Well, I've yet to get a response to you on that point..so hey, keep ignoring it and sticking to the lie.

As you know, most of the world's Christians belong to denominations which accept that evolution is consistent with Scripture.

I don't know about that one.

Science is like that. It's too weak a method to include the supernatural. All I'm saying is that the record clearly shows that attacking evolution on religious grounds is a very efficient way of keeping people from coming to Jesus, and often causes others to lose their faith.

Not only do I disagree, just on theory...but I've already responded to this.

It is a cool, rhetoric talking point to raise antennas...but no actual facts behind it.

Ain't nobody coming to Jesus because of no belief in evolution, nor is Jesus losing sheep because of evolution.

Just bad Christian theology.

Plain and simple.

Everyone thinks their error is truth. You're no different. Yours is a minority view among the world's Christians. My point is that some creationists have gone further and declared that accepting evolution is rejection of God. And that damages His church.

As I said, just bad Christian theology.

I'm just pointing out what Jesus said.

Oh, is that what you call it?

Don't recalling any such espousing nuclear fusion, either. Or many other things. That's not what they are for. Don't remember any Christian creed denying truths like that, either.

Yeah, but I'm not the one insinuating that the belief in evolution, even if true, is an essential part in the belief system.

You are.

As far I can tell, YE creationists are the only ones doing such. Why not just accept it God's way without additions?

Advocating YE creationism is indeed a false teaching, but it only veers off into heresy when one insists that YE is an essential part of Christian faith.

Here's what works. "See how they love each other." When unbelievers see that in the behavior of Christians, they are much more inclined to come and take a look.

And notice how you're the only one who keeps mentioning the YEC, OEC thing.

Just say "I'd like to debate YE vs OE".

Geez.

[Clownboat]

the theory of evolution contradicts scripture, and any teachings that contradicts, you know, the actual canonized, sacred, holy, and authoritative texts, then it should be rejected.

Which is what I'm doing as it relates to the theory of evolution; rejecting it.

"they will make an idol out of the Bible and their own interpretation of it which they will cling to as if it is themselves. They will fight among themselves because what they are really doing is self promotion, each of them seeking to claim to speak for God."

[Clownboat]

Just for the record, these are meaningful questions that never got answers even though the request was made many times.

"Now, can you name even one feature of birds that are not found in some other dinosaurs."
Seems like a relevant question to me when debating a person that rejects our current understanding of birds.

"why did chickens retain the ability to grow teeth? When and why did chickens ever have teeth is a question that needs an explanation."
Again, this seems very relevant, but no explanation was provided.

Now in place of rational debate, we get:
"If you want eternal life and to be spared of eternal damnation, do yourself a favor and accept Christ as Lord and Savior."
"as soon as you mention evolution, I guarantee the Creator of the universe looks at you with anger"

I get the impression that our fellow debater is more accustom to talking to children about these things.
Why, because threatening adults with what the gods will do to them is like threatening them with Santa not bringing them presents. Both are silly things to say because neither are found credible to the adult. For a child though, both threats may be taken seriously.

[Jose Fly]

the question was, how am I keeping people from Christ by rejecting God's hand in evolution, when I stated that a belief in evolution doesn't effect the Gospel?

That's likely not what's happening. Instead, by showing up in places like this, spouting a bunch of parroted nonsense from Hovind, acting like you're an expert in science when you clearly don't know anything about it, refusing to look at or discuss any science, refusing to discuss any creationist material, and generally behaving as you do....

....you just might be giving people a bad impression of Christians and even Christianity.

But I don't get the sense that you care, and I really don't either, so it's probably a topic of discussion with your fellow Christians (and more suited to a different sub-forum than this one).

[Difflugia]

1. Did any of Augustine's writings make it into the Biblical canon? No.

2. So, are we to look at Augustine's writings as sacred, holy, or authoritative? No.

"Look over there! A bird!"We_Are_VENOM

Now that those two are out the way, again, like I said; the theory of evolution contradicts scripture, and any teachings that contradicts, you know, the actual canonized, sacred, holy, and authoritative texts, then it should be rejected.

And, like Augustine of Hippo said, "Now it is a most shameful and pernicious thing, and greatly to be avoided, that a Christian discoursing on such matters, according to the Christian Scriptures, should rave to that extent that an unbeliever noticing how utterly he wanders from the truth should with difficulty be able to suppress his laughter."

Which is what I'm doing as it relates to the theory of evolution; rejecting it.

And that's what I'm doing with my laughter at your wandering; suppressing it.

Now, enjoy your popcorn with that.

With difficulty. It keeps coming out my nose.

"If you want to compare, uh, cytochrome C, then we're closest to popcorn."

[benchwarmer]

the question was, how am I keeping people from Christ by rejecting God's hand in evolution, when I stated that a belief in evolution doesn't effect the Gospel?

That's likely not what's happening. Instead, by showing up in places like this, spouting a bunch of parroted nonsense from Hovind, acting like you're an expert in science when you clearly don't know anything about it, refusing to look at or discuss any science, refusing to discuss any creationist material, and generally behaving as you do....

....you just might be giving people a bad impression of Christians and even Christianity.

But I don't get the sense that you care, and I really don't either, so it's probably a topic of discussion with your fellow Christians (and more suited to a different sub-forum than this one).

Exactly all of this.

At this point, if SiNcE_1985 wanted to share something they thought was important about Christianity, my first thought would be "there's a good chance this is a lie or probably twisted reality based on how they act with observed science". In other words, it would not be helpful. On the other hand, if Barbarian mentioned something about Christianity, I would not immediately assume something wrong and might even go look into it if I wasn't already aware.

In other words "Lying for Jesus" backfires more often than not. Pretending your twisted and uneducated view on science is necessary for God's love and accepting observed science is somehow 'heresy' is laughable. It's certainly not going to pique interest in Christianity if this is the type of people who speak for it.

I assume most people come here to debate ideas in order to persuade readers to their viewpoint. i.e. I love to point out inaccuracies in both science and Christianity using actual science and the Bible to make my case. While I'm not looking to make atheists, I will be happy if people on the fence will at least do some of their own research and make an informed decision. When I was a Christian, I was not aware of a lot of things that I am now aware of. Hopefully this debate forum is somewhere people land when asking questions.

Do you want to persuade people with facts they can go check or do you want to dive into pseudo science and egregious Bible interpretations? I know which is more persuasive to me.

[SiNcE_1985]

Just for the record, these are meaningful questions that never got answers even though the request was made many times.

Those questions got answered, just not the way you would of liked.

I'm not obligated to follow the narrative of your false religion (evolution)...and my answers will reflect this.

"Now, can you name even one feature of birds that are not found in some other dinosaurs."
Seems like a relevant question to me when debating a person that rejects our current understanding of birds.

Yeah, I reject YOUR understanding of birds.

Birds aren't dinosaurs, so it was a nonsensical question that was barely worth the attention I'm giving it even now.

"why did chickens retain the ability to grow teeth? When and why did chickens ever have teeth is a question that needs an explanation."
Again, this seems very relevant, but no explanation was provided.

I answered this, and for you to ignore the answer will maintaining there was no answer, is wild.

Now in place of rational debate, we get:
"If you want eternal life and to be spared of eternal damnation, do yourself a favor and accept Christ as Lord and Savior."
"as soon as you mention evolution, I guarantee the Creator of the universe looks at you with anger"

Yeah, I substituted his words and thoughts as it relates to his religion (evolution), and replaced it with mines.

Don't know if you caught that, but that's what I did.

We're just exchanging religions ideas, that's all.

I get the impression that our fellow debater is more accustom to talking to children about these things.
Why, because threatening adults with what the gods will do to them is like threatening them with Santa not bringing them presents. Both are silly things to say because neither are found credible to the adult. For a child though, both threats may be taken seriously.

Speaking of Santa, I wonder what you think Rudolph was evolving into, with his red nose.