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.

[1213]

...The Wikipedia quote you referenced accurately points out that phylogenetic trees are tools with inherent limitations. Scientists know these tools arent perfectthey rely on assumptions and models that can sometimes lead to errors in reconstructing specific evolutionary relationships. However, this doesnt mean molecular phylogenies are insufficient evidence for evolution.
...

Ok, thank you. For me it means it is not good evidence.

[William]

...The Wikipedia quote you referenced accurately points out that phylogenetic trees are tools with inherent limitations. Scientists know these tools arent perfectthey rely on assumptions and models that can sometimes lead to errors in reconstructing specific evolutionary relationships. However, this doesnt mean molecular phylogenies are insufficient evidence for evolution.
...

Ok, thank you. For me it means it is not good evidence.

As opposed to what contrary "good evidence"?

[The Barbarian]

...The Wikipedia quote you referenced accurately points out that phylogenetic trees are tools with inherent limitations. Scientists know these tools arent perfectthey rely on assumptions and models that can sometimes lead to errors in reconstructing specific evolutionary relationships. However, this doesnt mean molecular phylogenies are insufficient evidence for evolution.
...

Ok, thank you. For me it means it is not good evidence.

What's more convincing than the genetic trees that confirm phylogenies based on other data (we see remarkable concurrence from a "tree of life" prepared by Linnaeus in the 1700s) is that we don't find any genetic relationships where there shouldn't be any. Fish are always genetically more like other fish than they are like any mammals.

While YE creationists like Dr. Kurt Wise admit that the above evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", they don't consider why the evidence only shows evolutionary relationships where evolutionary theory predicts them.

[1213]

...we don't find any genetic relationships where there shouldn't be any....

Are you saying fish and men don't have common ancestor?

[The Barbarian]

...we don't find any genetic relationships where there shouldn't be any....

Are you saying fish and men don't have common ancestor?

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor. But we should never find mammals more closely related to fish than to other mammals. Such genetic relationships don't exist. Likewise, we should never find chordates more closely related to insects than to other chordates. And so on.

[1213]

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor....

Ok, it is fascinating how people can believe that.

[Clownboat]

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor....

Ok, it is fascinating how people can believe that.

Some people are willing to put in the work in order to try understand. For others, religious explanations are believed and then there is no reason to put in the work.

If we pretend for a minute that evolution has been falsified, what mechanism would you propose that would better explain not only the animals we see on the planet now, but also in the fossil record?
I ask because there are more than 340,000 species of beetles alone on this planet. How do we get from Noah's ark (mere thousands of years ago) to 340,000 species of this just one example?

Do I have this correct?
You find the mechanism of evolution to be fascinating to believe, but a pair of beetles evolving into 340,000 different species over the course of some thousands of years is not fascinating.

You complain about evolution while evoking a super form of it that would make a biologist blush! That is truly fascinating.

[Difflugia]

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor....

Ok, it is fascinating how people can believe that.

What quality of evidence would you need compared to, say, that of a dead criminal coming back to life and flying away?

[The Barbarian]

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor....

Ok, it is fascinating how people can believe that.

Comes down to evidence. DNA analyses confirm phylogenies based on several other lines of evidence, some of it noted as early as the 1700s. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. No point in denial.

[The Barbarian]

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor....

Ok, it is fascinating how people can believe that.

Some people are willing to put in the work in order to try understand. For others, religious explanations are believed and then there is no reason to put in the work.

If we pretend for a minute that evolution has been falsified, what mechanism would you propose that would better explain not only the animals we see on the planet now, but also in the fossil record?
I ask because there are more than 340,000 species of beetles alone on this planet. How do we get from Noah's ark (mere thousands of years ago) to 340,000 species of this just one example?

Do I have this correct?
You find the mechanism of evolution to be fascinating to believe, but a pair of beetles evolving into 340,000 different species over the course of some thousands of years is not fascinating.

You complain about evolution while evoking a super form of it that would make a biologist blush! That is truly fascinating.

The usual creationist explanation is that some kind of superhyperevolution was able to accomplish tens of millions of years of normal evolution in less than 5,000 years. While all things are possible with God, this seems a bit unlikely, especially since no one thought it remarkable that new species were popping into existence monthly. Not to mention that no one thought it remarkable that it suddenly ended in historical times.