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.

[marke]

Evolution is a theory supported by secular speculations,

Direct observation. I'm thinking that you have confused biological evolution (which we observe in all living populations) with common descent, which is merely a consequence of evolution. This goes back to your misunderstanding of what evolution is.

As you learned, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the evidence supports evolution. The ignorant masses of YE creationists do not, for the obvious reason. Would you like me to show you again?

Secularists call natural changes and adaptations 'evolution' in order to fool people into thinking those changes prove Drwinian evolution, but they prove nothing of the sort.

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is a theory supported by secular speculations,

Direct observation. I'm thinking that you have confused biological evolution (which we observe in all living populations) with common descent, which is merely a consequence of evolution. This goes back to your misunderstanding of what evolution is.

As you learned, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the evidence supports evolution. The ignorant masses of YE creationists do not, for the obvious reason. Would you like me to show you again?

Secularists call natural changes and adaptations 'evolution' in order to fool people into thinking those changes prove Drwinian evolution, but they prove nothing of the sort.

Darwinian evolution is speciation by random variation and natural selection. Which is what we observe happening. Darwin never asserted common descent; indeed, he suggested that God might have created any number of original organisms. YE creationists attempt re-define evolution to exclude Darwinian evolution.

The scientific definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is what we see. Macroevolution is defined as speciation. Which is what we see. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but not a requirement. Until the rise of genetics, there was nothing to deny what Darwin suggested, God creating some number of original living things. We now know that was not the case, but that isn't evolutionary theory.

It's a desperate tactic, one that is backfiring, as even young evangelicals are turning away from such a blatant dishonesty.

God Creates Through and Alongside Evolutionary Mechanisms

Some Evangelicals reject evolution, because they think it allows no place for God to be Creator. Unfortunately, they seem to be listening to a small but loud contingency of atheistic philosophers and scientists who claim evolution has no place for God. They want to force Evangelicals to choose between science and faith.

But Evangelicals can and should believe that God works through various evolutionary mechanisms as the initial and ongoing Creator of all things. There is no scientific reason to reject that God creates through evolution. I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Unfortunately, many young Evangelicals feel like the church forces them to choose between their faith and the best that science has to offer. The stories of those rejecting faith in the face of evolutionary evidence saddens me. Its time for the church to help those wrestling with these issues to see they can believe both in God as Creator and evolution.
The Bible is Consonant with Evolution

The Bible doesnt talk about evolution. In fact, Genesis and other books assume a worldview that has little in common with contemporary science. Biblical authors typically assume an ancient view of the world, in which the earth is flat and a dome covers the earth. It makes little sense to try to read evolution or other contemporary scientific theories into the Bible when they simply arent there.

The key to seeing the Bible as consonant with evolution, therefore, is to ask about the purpose of Scripture. Evangelicals regard the Bible as reliable for revealing Gods will concerning salvation. They should not consider the Bible a scientific textbook against which contemporary science including evolution be judged.

An old saying in Christian circles seems helpful on this issue: "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." My own more evolution-oriented saying is that the Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the scientific details of how life became abundant. In short, Evangelicals should look to the Bible for theological truth.
https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blo ... _evolution

It's critical for evangelicals as their numbers show a declining percentage of Americans accept evangelical beliefs.

Theres no official tally, but the best estimates suggest that evangelical Christians make up roughly one in three Americans. They are politically active and vocal about the state of American culture. But there are fewer of them than there once were. Polls have found that the number of Americans identifying as evangelical Christians is dropping rapidly. And its not just the polls. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical Protestant group in the country, has lost more than 2 million members over the last decade and a half.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/ne ... n-decline/

Young American evangelicals are walking away from their parents' beliefs. Some evangelicals' refusal to accept evolution has a lot to do with it.

[marke]

Evolution is a theory supported by secular speculations,

Direct observation. I'm thinking that you have confused biological evolution (which we observe in all living populations) with common descent, which is merely a consequence of evolution. This goes back to your misunderstanding of what evolution is.

As you learned, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the evidence supports evolution. The ignorant masses of YE creationists do not, for the obvious reason. Would you like me to show you again?

Secularists call natural changes and adaptations 'evolution' in order to fool people into thinking those changes prove Drwinian evolution, but they prove nothing of the sort.

Darwinian evolution is speciation by random variation and natural selection. Which is what we observe happening. Darwin never asserted common descent; indeed, he suggested that God might have created any number of original organisms. YE creationists attempt re-define evolution to exclude Darwinian evolution.

Marke: Give me one example of a modern observed Darwinian evolution speciation change.

The scientific definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is what we see. Macroevolution is defined as speciation. Which is what we see. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but not a requirement. Until the rise of genetics, there was nothing to deny what Darwin suggested, God creating some number of original living things. We now know that was not the case, but that isn't evolutionary theory.

Marke: Putting modern or archaic definitions aside, there has never been any scientific observation of animals evolving into higher creatures like apes evolving into humans.

It's a desperate tactic, one that is backfiring, as even young evangelicals are turning away from such a blatant dishonesty.

God Creates Through and Alongside Evolutionary Mechanisms

Some Evangelicals reject evolution, because they think it allows no place for God to be Creator. Unfortunately, they seem to be listening to a small but loud contingency of atheistic philosophers and scientists who claim evolution has no place for God. They want to force Evangelicals to choose between science and faith.

Marke: Bible believing Christians reject the unscientific claim that humans evolved from lower life forms and were not created by God in the Garden of Eden.

But Evangelicals can and should believe that God works through various evolutionary mechanisms as the initial and ongoing Creator of all things. There is no scientific reason to reject that God creates through evolution. I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Give me one example of a modern observed Darwinian evolution speciation change.

Drospophila miranda.
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/artic ... m=fulltext

You should probably learn a little about what YE creationism is about:


As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the churchthe belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... DZYkgE7wrR

The scientific definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is what we see. Macroevolution is defined as speciation. Which is what we see. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but not a requirement. Until the rise of genetics, there was nothing to deny what Darwin suggested, God creating some number of original living things. We now know that was not the case, but that isn't evolutionary theory.

Marke: Putting modern or archaic definitions aside, there has never been any scientific observation of animals evolving into higher creatures like apes evolving into humans.

"Higher" means nothing in evolutionary theory. It's about change, not "higher" or "lower." However, honest and knowledgeable creationists admit that the fossil record is very good evidence for such changes. Would you like to learn about it?

It's a desperate tactic, one that is backfiring, as even young evangelicals are turning away from such a blatant dishonesty.

God Creates Through and Alongside Evolutionary Mechanisms
Some Evangelicals reject evolution, because they think it allows no place for God to be Creator. Unfortunately, they seem to be listening to a small but loud contingency of atheistic philosophers and scientists who claim evolution has no place for God. They want to force Evangelicals to choose between science and faith.

Marke: Bible believing Christians reject the unscientific claim that humans evolved from lower life forms and were not created by God in the Garden of Eden.

Bible-believing Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His word in Genesis. Bible-amending Christians deny evolution.

But Evangelicals can and should believe that God works through various evolutionary mechanisms as the initial and ongoing Creator of all things. There is no scientific reason to reject that God creates through evolution. I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms.

[marke]

Marke: Give me one example of a modern observed Darwinian evolution speciation change.

Drospophila miranda.
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/artic ... m=fulltext

Marke: Touting the alleged evolution of one species into another that does not involve major physical or appearance changes is not a good example of Darwinian evolution from a species like birds changing into dinosaurs is pathetic.

You should probably learn a little about what YE creationism is about:


As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the churchthe belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... DZYkgE7wrR

Marke: I am not associated with Christian denominations that feel compelled to compromise between Adam and evolution.

The scientific definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is what we see. Macroevolution is defined as speciation. Which is what we see. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but not a requirement. Until the rise of genetics, there was nothing to deny what Darwin suggested, God creating some number of original living things. We now know that was not the case, but that isn't evolutionary theory.

Marke: Cleverly designed definitions do not prove apes evolved into humans.

Marke: Putting modern or archaic definitions aside, there has never been any scientific observation of animals evolving into higher creatures like apes evolving into humans.

"Higher" means nothing in evolutionary theory. It's about change, not "higher" or "lower." However, honest and knowledgeable creationists admit that the fossil record is very good evidence for such changes. Would you like to learn about it?

Marke: Unlike leftists, I subscribe to the concept that humans are superior (higher) to animals.

It's a desperate tactic, one that is backfiring, as even young evangelicals are turning away from such a blatant dishonesty.

God Creates Through and Alongside Evolutionary Mechanisms
Some Evangelicals reject evolution, because they think it allows no place for God to be Creator. Unfortunately, they seem to be listening to a small but loud contingency of atheistic philosophers and scientists who claim evolution has no place for God. They want to force Evangelicals to choose between science and faith.

Marke: Bible believing Christians reject the unscientific claim that humans evolved from lower life forms and were not created by God in the Garden of Eden.

Bible-believing Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His word in Genesis. Bible-amending Christians deny evolution.

But Evangelicals can and should believe that God works through various evolutionary mechanisms as the initial and ongoing Creator of all things. There is no scientific reason to reject that God creates through evolution. I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Marke: I believe God created fully formed species on earth in the initial week of creation.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I believe God created fully formed species on earth in the initial week of creation.

You seem interested in things that people believe, so I thought I would provide you with a list of other people's beliefs about creation. Just imagine that you were debating them and they informed you of their beliefs. Then imagine that their evidence was just them slandering your god concept and not providing any evidence whatsoever for their own beliefs to suggest that they might be credible. I know, how cool would that be!

Africa
Ancient Egyptian creation myths
Fon creation myth
Kaang creation myth (Bushmen)
Kintu myth (Bugandan)
Mand creation myth
Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo)
Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai )
Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania)
Unkulunkulu (Zulu)
Yoruba creation (Nigeria, Africa)

Mesoamerica
Coatlicue (Aztec)
Maya creation of the world myth
Popol Vuh (Quich Mayan)
Mid North America
Anishinaabeg creation stories
Cherokee creation myth
Choctaw creation myth
Creek creation myth
Hopi creation myth
Iroquois creation myth
Kuterastan (Plains Apache)
Din Bahane (Navajo)
Raven in Creation (Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian)
Zuni creation myth

South America
Legend of Trentren Vilu and Caicai Vilu (Chilean)
Viracocha (Incan)
Xolas (Chilean)

Central Asia
Ergenekon
Mongolian creation myth
Tungusic creation myth
East Asia
Ainu creation myth (Japan)
Au Co (Vietnamese)
Chinese creation myth
Japanese creation myth
Korean creation narratives
Vietnamese creation myth
Nwa (Chinese)
Pangu (Chinese)

Indian subcontinent
Ajativada
Buddhist cosmology
Folk Hindu creation myth
Hiranyagarbha creation (India)
Jainism and non-creationism (India)
Meitei mythology (India)
Mimamsa eternalism (India)
Nyaya-Vaisheshika atomic theory (India)
Samkhya-yoga theory (India)
Sanamahi creation myth (India)

Europe
Slavic creation myth
Theogony (Greek)
Book of Invasions (Celtic, specifically Irish)
Vinminen (Finnish)
Vlusp (Norse)

Middle East
Enma Eli (Babylonian)
Eridu Genesis (Sumerian)
Genesis creation (Hebrew)
Islamic creation myth (Arabic)
Leviathan (Book of Job 38-41 creation myth)
Mashya and Mashyana (Persian)
Pacific Islands/Oceanic
Areop-Enap (Nauruan)
Kumulipo (Hawaiian)
Mori myths (Mori)
Rangi and Papa (Mori)
Sureq Galigo (Buginese)

Australian
The Australian Aboriginal concepts of "The Dreaming" or "Dreamtime".[1]

Isn't it neat knowing what others simply believe? If only they would all come on here and tell us there beliefs while making claims they don't understand about evolution! How cool would that be?

[The Barbarian]

I believe God created fully formed species on earth in the initial week of creation.

Which is O.K. if you do. It's just not supported in Scripture.

[marke]

Marke: I believe God created fully formed species on earth in the initial week of creation.

You seem interested in things that people believe, so I thought I would provide you with a list of other people's beliefs about creation. Just imagine that you were debating them and they informed you of their beliefs. Then imagine that their evidence was just them slandering your god concept and not providing any evidence whatsoever for their own beliefs to suggest that they might be credible. I know, how cool would that be!

Africa
Ancient Egyptian creation myths
Fon creation myth
Kaang creation myth (Bushmen)
Kintu myth (Bugandan)
Mand creation myth
Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo)
Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai )
Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania)
Unkulunkulu (Zulu)
Yoruba creation (Nigeria, Africa)

Mesoamerica
Coatlicue (Aztec)
Maya creation of the world myth
Popol Vuh (Quich Mayan)
Mid North America
Anishinaabeg creation stories
Cherokee creation myth
Choctaw creation myth
Creek creation myth
Hopi creation myth
Iroquois creation myth
Kuterastan (Plains Apache)
Din Bahane (Navajo)
Raven in Creation (Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian)
Zuni creation myth

South America
Legend of Trentren Vilu and Caicai Vilu (Chilean)
Viracocha (Incan)
Xolas (Chilean)

Central Asia
Ergenekon
Mongolian creation myth
Tungusic creation myth
East Asia
Ainu creation myth (Japan)
Au Co (Vietnamese)
Chinese creation myth
Japanese creation myth
Korean creation narratives
Vietnamese creation myth
Nwa (Chinese)
Pangu (Chinese)

Indian subcontinent
Ajativada
Buddhist cosmology
Folk Hindu creation myth
Hiranyagarbha creation (India)
Jainism and non-creationism (India)
Meitei mythology (India)
Mimamsa eternalism (India)
Nyaya-Vaisheshika atomic theory (India)
Samkhya-yoga theory (India)
Sanamahi creation myth (India)

Europe
Slavic creation myth
Theogony (Greek)
Book of Invasions (Celtic, specifically Irish)
Vinminen (Finnish)
Vlusp (Norse)

Middle East
Enma Eli (Babylonian)
Eridu Genesis (Sumerian)
Genesis creation (Hebrew)
Islamic creation myth (Arabic)
Leviathan (Book of Job 38-41 creation myth)
Mashya and Mashyana (Persian)
Pacific Islands/Oceanic
Areop-Enap (Nauruan)
Kumulipo (Hawaiian)
Mori myths (Mori)
Rangi and Papa (Mori)
Sureq Galigo (Buginese)

Australian
The Australian Aboriginal concepts of "The Dreaming" or "Dreamtime".[1]

Isn't it neat knowing what others simply believe? If only they would all come on here and tell us there beliefs while making claims they don't understand about evolution! How cool would that be?

Marke: A million false gods and erroneous beliefs do not falsify the truth about the One Creator God.

[Clownboat]

Marke: A million false gods and erroneous beliefs do not falsify the truth about the One Creator God.

Super neato! Now, did you do this as asked?
"Just imagine that you were debating them and they informed you of their beliefs. Then imagine that their evidence was just them slandering your god concept and not providing any evidence whatsoever for their own beliefs to suggest that they might be credible."

Did you find their approach to be a good way for them to argue for their god concept, or was something lacking?

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Give me one example of a modern observed Darwinian evolution speciation change.

Drospophila miranda.
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/artic ... m=fulltext

(Sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

Touting the alleged evolution of one species into another that does not involve major physical or appearance changes is not a good example of Darwinian evolution from a species like birds changing into dinosaurs is pathetic. [/b]

Evolution of new species is precisely what Darwin's theory is about; it was the title of his book. But if you think that the evolution of birds from other dinosaurs is such a huge leap, show me one character of birds that is not found in other dinosaurs. What do you have?


As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the churchthe belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... DZYkgE7wrR

I am not associated with Christian denominations that feel compelled to compromise between Adam and evolution.[/b]

You are already compromising between Adam and YE creationism. I'm just showing you what one of the largest YE creationist groups thinks of speciation.

The scientific definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is what we see. Macroevolution is defined as speciation. Which is what we see. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but not a requirement. Until the rise of genetics, there was nothing to deny what Darwin suggested, God creating some number of original living things. We now know that was not the case, but that isn't evolutionary theory.

Cleverly designed definitions do not prove apes evolved into humans.

Mutation and natural selection made humans evolve from other apes. Even honest and informed YE creationists admit that the paleontological evidence supports the conclusion. Would you like me to show you?

Putting modern or archaic definitions aside, there has never been any scientific observation of animals evolving into higher creatures like apes evolving into humans.[/b]

"Higher" means nothing in evolutionary theory. It's about change, not "higher" or "lower." However, honest and knowledgeable creationists admit that the fossil record is very good evidence for such changes. Would you like to learn about it?

Unlike leftists, I subscribe to the concept that humans are superior (higher) to animals.[/b]

In most ways, we are smarter than other animals. But not in all ways. I'm pretty sure dogs think we are terribly slow at recognizing scent trails. And chimps have better cognitive skills than humans in some ways:

Chimps beat humans in these cognitive tests
Their working memory outclasses ours.
Chimpanzees top humans in various cognitive tests, particularly those that measure basic strategizing and working memory. The findings challenge our biases that we are far smarter than our evolutionary cousins. We humans like to think that though we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our brains are wholly superior. The scientific literature is almost certainly underestimating the cognitive abilities of chimpanzees and other apes compared to our own.
https://bigthink.com/life/chimpanzees-beat-humans/

God Creates Through and Alongside Evolutionary Mechanisms
Some Evangelicals reject evolution, because they think it allows no place for God to be Creator. Unfortunately, they seem to be listening to a small but loud contingency of atheistic philosophers and scientists who claim evolution has no place for God. They want to force Evangelicals to choose between science and faith.

Marke: Bible believing Christians reject the unscientific claim that humans evolved from lower life forms and were not created by God in the Garden of Eden.

Bible-believing Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His word in Genesis. Bible-amending Christians deny evolution.

But Evangelicals can and should believe that God works through various evolutionary mechanisms as the initial and ongoing Creator of all things. There is no scientific reason to reject that God creates through evolution. I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Marke: I believe God created fully formed species on earth in the initial week of creation.

God doesn't care if you do. He doesn't judge you on whether or not you approve of the way He did creation.