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.

[The Barbarian]

Actually I don't know how many generations evolution believers think there was before a whale came into existence. I assume they would say a number that gives them an excuse to believe the theory without testing it.

Except the theory has been tested in the lab. Evolution deniers, who on the whole don't understand the science, like to just ignore hard data
...

I don't think there is any hard data for evolution, sorry.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. We see that going on constantly. Sometimes, it results in the evolution of a new species. Would you like to learn about that? Evolution is an observed phenomenon. You might as well deny sunshine. I think you've wrongly confused the phenomenon of evolution with consequences of evolution like common descent.

[1213]

...you should be picking some actual scientific data ...

Can you give one example of such data, with your own words shortly, preferably the one that you think is the best?

[1213]

...Evolution is an observed phenomenon. ...

Sorry, i don't think that is true. Unless we define evolution to mean any change.

[benchwarmer]

...you should be picking some actual scientific data ...

Can you give one example of such data, with your own words shortly, preferably the one that you think is the best?

You and readers have already been given plenty of scientific articles to either look at or ignore. It seems you are choosing ignore. That's fine if that's the type of argument you want to present.

You do understand I'm not trying to change your mind right? I'm simply showing those following along that there is actual scientific data to go explore if they so choose. If you don't want to engage with that, I think that might be showing your cards, but that's your choice.

[benchwarmer]

...Evolution is an observed phenomenon. ...

Sorry, i don't think that is true. Unless we define evolution to mean any change.

More proof you haven't a clue what the scientific theory is or what any of the data is showing. You ignoring the actual science and/or redefining things to suit your religious beliefs might be comforting to you, but I hardly think it's convincing to anyone.

Think of it this way. It's analogous to us having a debate about the characteristics of Jesus and I keep bringing up that Jesus was a rich businessman who owned many brothels. You keep telling me to read the Bible and show you where it says that. I point to Matthew 21:32 and make some convoluted case that because it mentions prostitutes believed, Jesus must have been a brothel owner.

As you contemplate the ludicrousness of the above, realize this is how anyone who actually understands the science is viewing your argument.

[The Barbarian]

...Evolution is an observed phenomenon. ...

Sorry, i don't think that is true.

The important thing about reality is, it doesn't care what we think. By definition, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification." You can like it or you can not like it. But it still is.

Unless we define evolution to mean any change.

That's wrong, too. Not all adaptation is evolution. Not all evolution is adaptation. Why not take a little time, and learn about this and then come back and talk to us about it?

[The Barbarian]

It's important to understand how evolution works. It's merely genetic change in a population as time goes on.

This can happen in various ways. Mutations are a common agency of evolution. A new mutation that spreads though a population causes evolution. While time and chance happens to all, those mutations that increase the likelihood of an organism surviving long enough to reproduce will tend to increase in frequency, while those that reduce such likelihoods will tend to be removed from the population. This is natural selection and it is a observable phenomenon in populations.

Microevolution is evolution within a species, while macroevolution is evolution that produces new species. Both have been observed.

Since there is no intrinsic limit to the amount of new variation or any limit to genetic variation, we see that over longer period of time, new genera, families, orders, classes, etc. will evolve. Mathematical certainty. If anyone would like to see that, I could show the numbers.

As the fossil record became known, it quickly showed the same phylogenetic trees that closely matched the trees based on phenotype, prepared by scientists who were not even aware of evolution. When the function of DNA became known, evolutionary theory predicted that genetic relationships would confirm these earlier trees. And they have, to a very high degree of precision. Even more convincing, we don't see transitional forms or genetic relationships where evolutionary theory predicts none.

[Clownboat]

... Now what mechanism do you propose that better explains the animals we see not only now, but also in this fossil record?...

That they were created as told in the Bible.

Bible tells things were created by God's words. This can be seen similar as to how a programmed makes a world with coding it. If we look all cells, they can be seen as coded organisms.

Fossil record tells only that some animals have been captured at some point. They don't really tell anything about how they came into existence in the first place.

Your explanation (the Bible) is not authoritative. It also does not explain all the species of animals that we do see in the fossil record and would require Super Evolution (while denying actual evolution) to get from two of every animal to what we see today.
Due to these things, I cannot respect it as an explanation. Something better than 'religious promotional material told me so' is needed. Especially when evolution is so easily falsified (a rabbit in the Cambrian for just one example).

Can you show us an examples of the Super Evolution that would be required in order to get us from 2 beetles on a boat to the more than 350,000 species we now observe? That would be a good place to start I would think.

[1213]

Your explanation (the Bible) is not authoritative....

but you are?

Can you show us an examples of the Super Evolution that would be required in order to get us from 2 beetles on a boat to the more than 350,000 species we now observe? That would be a good place to start I would think.

Can I get an image of those 350,000 beetles?

I don't think there needed to be many beetles in the ark, because many if not all of them could survive underground and for example in egg or larva state. This leads to question, why did the evolution, or as it was used to be called, mother earth, give the 4 states of development for beetles?

[1213]

...you should be picking some actual scientific data ...

Can you give one example of such data, with your own words shortly, preferably the one that you think is the best?

You and readers have already been given plenty of scientific articles to either look at or ignore....

And how you think they are good scientific data for evolution, I never know.