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.

[Clownboat]

I don't think magic is needed, nor used and I don't believe in magic.

That is why I said "or whatever you would call it".
Call it something other than magic then. What was the mechanism so I can compare that to the theory of evolution? Perhaps one explanation will better explain the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record.

Why animals are in fossil record is not because they were created, but because at one point they were captured in sediments.

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

And it seems many if not all of those were captured during the great flood event.

To debate a great flood is to give such a thing credit it doesn't deserve. Like debating a flat earth, both are ridiculous claims without any merit. I'm sorry, but I can no longer take such an explanation seriously. You might as well be arguing that the earth is flat. I may pat your head and smile, but I can't take such a thing seriously (unless newly discovered information is being offered of course).

[Purple Knight]

If evolution would be true, it should be possible to breed a rat into a mini whale. If you manage to do that, I can believe the theory is possible.

Let's say I've got a breeding pair of rats. Based on your understanding of evolution, how should I construct and conduct the experiment? If I'm allowed to do artificial selection, how might I go about deciding which rats to breed together at each subsequent generation? What's your estimate of the number of generations it should take before I've got a mini whale?

Obviously it should be done the similar way as it is claimed whales evolved. You start by changing the conditions and selecting those that fit best to the changing conditions. And changing conditions means, you increase the water element so that it favors those that are best fit to the water environment.

I would allow you to pick the ones that are best fit, but not artificial modification of DNA.

And I expect that even in infinite number of generations you would not get a mini whale. (And I don't mean in this case that it should be genetically the same as modern whales, but similar animal in appearance)

You will be hard-pressed to find a felis catus that looks like this, unless you go to a breeder. This one is even more extreme than the ones I have.



Now you can say, well, there are multiple genes that do things like lean the body, elongate the head, or increase ear size, scattered across the land, hidden in the far corners of every continent so that no cat naturally has them all but God put them all out, and breeders like me have simply collected all of them and put them in a single animal.

And if you did say that, fair enough.

But then you might wonder, are there multiple genes already out there, which God has scattered, that do things like web the hands, shorten the legs, flatten the tail, push the nostrils upward, and remove hair? With those then, if we are allowed to collect them all and put them in a single animal, we might get a mini whale.

I'm saying this because, "but, the genes are all already out there" which you need to get the Oriental Shorthair, would also allow a whale. Look up mermaid girl. Look at her. Look at her! This ONE thing has reduced and combined the legs such that it is VERY understandable how we might get a seal from something that was not a seal.

Maybe I've rambled a bit but my point is, going from a nonwhale mammal to a whale, is not a good test for evolution. You can probably do that whether evolution is true or not. The only thing that would be a good test, is simple to complex. If someone can get a cat from a paramecium then evolution is true and nobody can deny it anymore.

[1213]

... 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.

[1213]

Obviously it should be done the similar way as it is claimed whales evolved. You start by changing the conditions and selecting those that fit best to the changing conditions. And changing conditions means, you increase the water element so that it favors those that are best fit to the water environment.

Tell me what you think that is. You're telling me that this is a practical experiment to conduct and success would be sufficient for you to accept evolution.

It would be sufficient for me to believe it would happen that for example whales evolved as it is claimed. It does not necessary mean such a thing ever happened, only that it could be possible.

I mean for a successful outcome. Based on your understanding of the theory of evolution, how many generations of rats should I expect to breed before I get the mini-whale?

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.

[benchwarmer]

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 because to do otherwise will somehow collapse their religious faith.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/experimental-evolution

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6680118/

etc. (Google will find you all kinds of articles on experiments around evolution)

Unless a crocodile gives birth to a duck or scientists can cause a pair of rats to birth a whale in front of their eyes, some like to pretend evolution is not a real thing. Thankfully scientists in the field don't care what a small percent of the population believes due to religious faith and continue to advance our knowledge.

[Difflugia]

It would be sufficient for me to believe it would happen that for example whales evolved as it is claimed. It does not necessary mean such a thing ever happened, only that it could be possible.

How do you think it's claimed?

So you know where I'm going with this, you've said enough to make it clear that you don't actually know the details of the theory of evolution. There are lots of practical experiments that can show that evolution is far and away the most likely explanation for Earth's biodiversity, but breeding a whate from a mouse isn't one of them. If you explain why you think it's practical, we can probably figure out how to correct at least some of your misinformation.

Actually I don't know how many generations evolution believers think there was before a whale came into existence.

Then why would you suggest that as a practical experiment? If you don't understand the theory, how can you expect to evaluate the evidence for it?

I assume they would say a number that gives them an excuse to believe the theory without testing it.

Like a science denier picking an experiment that is so absurdly impractical that it can't be conducted in our lifetimes?

That's the whole point of molecular phylogenetics. We have so much data at our disposal that we can prove beyond question that whatever happened is completely indistinguishable from evolution. Would you like to learn how?

[1213]

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. The ones given are not demonstrating evolution any more than if for example humans start eating processed food.

[benchwarmer]

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. The ones given are not demonstrating evolution any more than if for example humans start eating processed food.

You don't think there is any. There is your problem. It's not a thinking exercise, it's a looking at exercise.

We get it. You either don't want to look at it, have looked at it and don't care/don't understand, or have looked at it and realized it's not good for your argument so just ignore it. Either way, you are likely not presenting any sort of compelling case to sway readers to your side.

In my opinion, you should be picking some actual scientific data and going through it step by step and explaining how this isn't supporting the current scientific theory. If you did that, everyone would be paying attention. Simply closing your eyes and ignoring it or pretending it's not there isn't likely helping your case.

[The Barbarian]

Hello
The Big Bang is yesterday's anti-God soundbite.

It was discovered by a physicist, Georges Lemaître, who was also a Christian clergyman. It was denounced by an atheist, Fred Hoyle, because it suggested a moment of creation.

You have it precisely backwards.

[The Barbarian]

... 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.

God says that living things were brought forth by the Earth as He intended. He doesn't provide details, but it's notable that the "coding" in organisms shows the same evolutionary phylogenies that were produced by other data. Would you like to learn about that?