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]

Assuming that it must be true that evolution caused genetic similarities because genetic similarities continue to exist as predicted by evolutionists does not prove evolution at all.

That's a bizarre statement. Do you assume that the Earth is round because the Sun continues to rise and set as predicted by sphericists?

[marke]

I assume genetic similarities are there by God's design

Then you'll need to explain why God did things like put the same viral sequences in the human and chimp genomes, in the same spots. Or why God disabled genes the same way in humans and chimps, but in other ways in other organisms.

IOW, why would God put the same genetic errors in different species?

Why must Christians prove God created genetic similarities before unbelievers will blindly believe God could not have done it?

Nobody is asking you to prove anything, but merely give some evidence as to why such a thing might be done (notice which subforum you are in).

As to why unbelievers should not "blindly believe God could not have done it", because nobody should blindly believe anything. It seems a bit ironic that you appear to be blindly believing whichever apologist/website (AIG perhaps?) is telling you evolution is not a thing and refuse to go look into the actual evidence that leads to the scientific theory being discussed.

What you are doing is akin to an atheist constantly telling you that Jesus wore a pink hat while traveling. You say there is no evidence of that and ask where in the Bible it says that. The atheist simply keeps asserting it as fact and refuses to show you any compelling evidence. In fact, it seems pretty obvious based on lack of knowledge that this atheist hasn't even read the Bible. They are probably just getting this information from a well know conspiracy web site.

Notice the parallel? Probably not, but that's exactly what's happening here.

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

[Difflugia]

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

We can't irrefutably exclude leprechauns or unicorns, either, but that's just another way of saying that anything's possible. It's also possible that cars run on gasoline and rainbows or the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion and pixie dust. You can just as easily claim that God is part of this complete breakfast, but I say that God and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

[benchwarmer]

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

You've got this backwards. There is plenty of scientific evidence (pathways as you say) that don't require the involvement of a god (God in your case). In other words, God is just an unneeded extra as far as we can tell. It seems to have to be repeated ad nauseum, but origins have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution. Why do apologists keep bringing up this pointless point about origins?

We have scientifically observed what happens when organisms procreate. At the DNA level. It's clear what's happening and how this relates to the current scientific theory (not some made up strawman) of evolution. Might a god/pixie/unicorn/band of goblins have created the first life? We don't know and regarding the theory of evolution, we don't care.

We do note that no gods have been observed yet, so there's not point including them in any hypothesis until such an observation occurs. Even if we do find a god through scientific observation, it will make ZERO difference to the science of evolution. Evolution is a fact. It happens. Did a god put everything into motion? Don't know, but either way, evolution is what we observe happening.

[Jose Fly]

Why must Christians prove God created genetic similarities

Because you're claiming that's what happened. If you can't provide evidence to support that claim, it is by definition baseless and can be dismissed.

before unbelievers will blindly believe God could not have done it?

Gods can do anything and everything. What you need to do is support the claim that the God you believe in created the shared genetic sequences in humans and chimps that I mentioned.

[The Barbarian]

Assuming that it must be true that evolution caused genetic similarities because genetic similarities continue to exist as predicted by evolutionists does not prove evolution at all.

Assuming that God would fake evidence for a chromosome fusion in humans, so that one human chromosome looks just like that of two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres at the fusion site, would be attributing dishonesty to God.

Assuming that God inserts identical retrovirus fragments into chromosomes of related species just to fake evolution is attributing dishonesty to God.

These remains have no genetic function; they are remains of once-functional things. God is not deceptive. Stop suggesting that He is.

[The Barbarian]

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

You've got this backwards. There is plenty of scientific evidence (pathways as you say) that don't require the involvement of a god (God in your case). In other words, God is just an unneeded extra as far as we can tell. It seems to have to be repeated ad nauseum, but origins have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution. Why do apologists keep bringing up this pointless point about origins?

We have scientifically observed what happens when organisms procreate. At the DNA level. It's clear what's happening and how this relates to the current scientific theory (not some made up strawman) of evolution. Might a god/pixie/unicorn/band of goblins have created the first life? We don't know and regarding the theory of evolution, we don't care.

We do note that no gods have been observed yet, so there's not point including them in any hypothesis until such an observation occurs. Even if we do find a god through scientific observation, it will make ZERO difference to the science of evolution. Evolution is a fact. It happens. Did a god put everything into motion? Don't know, but either way, evolution is what we observe happening.

Exactly. If God had magically poofed life into being, rather than having the earth bring it forth (as He tells us that He did), it would make no difference at all to evolution, which would work exactly the same way as it does now.

[marke]

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

We can't irrefutably exclude leprechauns or unicorns, either, but that's just another way of saying that anything's possible. It's also possible that cars run on gasoline and rainbows or the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion and pixie dust. You can just as easily claim that God is part of this complete breakfast, but I say that God and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

Foolish arguments do not make beliefs in God foolish.

[marke]

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

You've got this backwards. There is plenty of scientific evidence (pathways as you say) that don't require the involvement of a god (God in your case). In other words, God is just an unneeded extra as far as we can tell. It seems to have to be repeated ad nauseum, but origins have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution. Why do apologists keep bringing up this pointless point about origins?

We have scientifically observed what happens when organisms procreate. At the DNA level. It's clear what's happening and how this relates to the current scientific theory (not some made up strawman) of evolution. Might a god/pixie/unicorn/band of goblins have created the first life? We don't know and regarding the theory of evolution, we don't care.

We do note that no gods have been observed yet, so there's not point including them in any hypothesis until such an observation occurs. Even if we do find a god through scientific observation, it will make ZERO difference to the science of evolution. Evolution is a fact. It happens. Did a god put everything into motion? Don't know, but either way, evolution is what we observe happening.

Exactly. If God had magically poofed life into being, rather than having the earth bring it forth (as He tells us that He did), it would make no difference at all to evolution, which would work exactly the same way as it does now.

If God wanted to use evolution to grow life then He could have, but He didn't.

[The Barbarian]

Nobody has provided any scientifically acceptable pathway for the origin of life on earth and the procreation of new life on earth that irrefutably excludes God.

You've got this backwards. There is plenty of scientific evidence (pathways as you say) that don't require the involvement of a god (God in your case). In other words, God is just an unneeded extra as far as we can tell. It seems to have to be repeated ad nauseum, but origins have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution. Why do apologists keep bringing up this pointless point about origins?

We have scientifically observed what happens when organisms procreate. At the DNA level. It's clear what's happening and how this relates to the current scientific theory (not some made up strawman) of evolution. Might a god/pixie/unicorn/band of goblins have created the first life? We don't know and regarding the theory of evolution, we don't care.

We do note that no gods have been observed yet, so there's not point including them in any hypothesis until such an observation occurs. Even if we do find a god through scientific observation, it will make ZERO difference to the science of evolution. Evolution is a fact. It happens. Did a god put everything into motion? Don't know, but either way, evolution is what we observe happening.

Exactly. If God had magically poofed life into being, rather than having the earth bring it forth (as He tells us that He did), it would make no difference at all to evolution, which would work exactly the same way as it does now.

If God wanted to use evolution to grow life then He could have, but He didn't.

Since we directly observe evolution going on in living populations, that's not debatable. Unless you think someone else created living things. God did it, and evolution is the way it works.