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]

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.

You see what is called evolution on a tiny scale that does not even resemble macro evolution.

[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.

You see what is called evolution on a tiny scale that does not even resemble macro evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is.
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

Since speciation has been repeatedly observed, macroevolution is an observed fact. Even many creationists have now conceded the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. Those creationists have tried to redefine the term as "any evolution that takes so long that no one could every document it."

[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.

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.

You see what is called evolution on a tiny scale that does not even resemble macro evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is.
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

Since speciation has been repeatedly observed, macroevolution is an observed fact. Even many creationists have now conceded the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. Those creationists have tried to redefine the term as "any evolution that takes so long that no one could every document it."

Not only do we not see mice transforming into elephants, we cannot find any evidence in the fossil record to show that it ever happened in the past. Living creatures of one species do not evolve into some other entirely different species throug Darwinian speculation.

[benchwarmer]

Not only do we not see mice transforming into elephants,

Sigh.... Please find a peer reviewed, scientific article that says a mice can transform into an elephant. We'll wait....

While we're waiting, I think readers will note that the only attack some apologists seem to have against the actual science is a made up caricature. This is a typical strawman which they will happily hack away at while everyone familiar with the actual science watches on.

we cannot find any evidence in the fossil record to show that it ever happened in the past.

Well, if you do, you will win a Nobel prize and cause an upset to the current theory of evolution. In fact, this is exactly the type of thing you need to find to call the current theory into question and potentially have it refuted. Ironic right?

[marke]

Not only do we not see mice transforming into elephants,

Sigh.... Please find a peer reviewed, scientific article that says a mice can transform into an elephant. We'll wait....

While we're waiting, I think readers will note that the only attack some apologists seem to have against the actual science is a made up caricature. This is a typical strawman which they will happily hack away at while everyone familiar with the actual science watches on.

we cannot find any evidence in the fossil record to show that it ever happened in the past.

Well, if you do, you will win a Nobel prize and cause an upset to the current theory of evolution. In fact, this is exactly the type of thing you need to find to call the current theory into question and potentially have it refuted. Ironic right?

Macro evolution cannot be proven by observations, only by assumptions or biased interpretations of data.

[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.

You see what is called evolution on a tiny scale that does not even resemble macro evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is.
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

Since speciation has been repeatedly observed, macroevolution is an observed fact. Even many creationists have now conceded the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. Those creationists have tried to redefine the term as "any evolution that takes so long that no one could every document it."

Not only do we not see mice transforming into elephants, we cannot find any evidence in the fossil record to show that it ever happened in the past. Living creatures of one species do not evolve into some other entirely different species throug Darwinian speculation.

This is the usual YE creationist stuff. Imagine something that evolutionary theory does not support, and then pretend that evolutionary theory says it. As you learned, rodents are about as distantly related from elephants as it's possible for placental mammals to be. No one in science ever said that one evolved into the other. Stuff like this is why people assume that YE creationists are dishonest.

And even many creationists now admit that new species evolve from old ones. Most admit evolution of new genera and some go even further. Since macroevolution (see the definition above) is an observed fact, there's really no point in denial.

[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.

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.

You see what is called evolution on a tiny scale that does not even resemble macro evolution.

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is.
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

Since speciation has been repeatedly observed, macroevolution is an observed fact. Even many creationists have now conceded the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. Those creationists have tried to redefine the term as "any evolution that takes so long that no one could every document it."

Not only do we not see mice transforming into elephants, we cannot find any evidence in the fossil record to show that it ever happened in the past. Living creatures of one species do not evolve into some other entirely different species throug Darwinian speculation.

This is the usual YE creationist stuff. Imagine something that evolutionary theory does not support, and then pretend that evolutionary theory says it. As you learned, rodents are about as distantly related from elephants as it's possible for placental mammals to be. No one in science ever said that one evolved into the other. Stuff like this is why people assume that YE creationists are dishonest.

And even many creationists now admit that new species evolve from old ones. Most admit evolution of new genera and some go even further. Since macroevolution (see the definition above) is an observed fact, there's really no point in denial.

What fossil can you point to that is not fully elephant and not fully some other identifiable creature but is assumed to be the next of kin of an evolutionary change from one species into an elephant? I say this because I believe there is not consistent evidence in the fossil record to support macro evolutionary changes.

[The Barbarian]

Not only do we not see mice transforming into elephants, we cannot find any evidence in the fossil record to show that it ever happened in the past. Living creatures of one species do not evolve into some other entirely different species throug Darwinian speculation.

This is the usual YE creationist stuff. Imagine something that evolutionary theory does not support, and then pretend that evolutionary theory says it. As you learned, rodents are about as distantly related from elephants as it's possible for placental mammals to be. No one in science ever said that one evolved into the other. Stuff like this is why people assume that YE creationists are dishonest.

And even many creationists now admit that new species evolve from old ones. Most admit evolution of new genera and some go even further. Since macroevolution (see the definition above) is an observed fact, there's really no point in denial.

What fossil can you point to that is not fully elephant and not fully some other identifiable creature but is assumed to be the next of kin of an evolutionary change from one species into an elephant?

Eritherium azzouzorum


Lacks a trunk, but otherwise has all the elephant stuff, including primitive tusks and a prehensile upper lip.

A bit later...
Barytherium grave

Now there's a trunk, so it's technically an elephant.

[brunumb]

Macro evolution cannot be proven by observations, only by assumptions or biased interpretations of data.

That applies much more so to god concepts given that there is no data to interpret. If you dispute the latter, please supply some of that data.

[marke]

Macro evolution cannot be proven by observations, only by assumptions or biased interpretations of data.

That applies much more so to god concepts given that there is no data to interpret. If you dispute the latter, please supply some of that data.

Othniel Marsh proposed a sequence in horse evolution that was pictured and promoted in scientific circles and school textbooks for decades until the assumptions were disproven by later evidence. Bones proved nothing and pictoral displays proved nothing when the scientific evidence was later uncovered which refuted the assumptions and erroneous interpretations of the evidence.

INTRO: Othniel C. Marsh's “Horse Series” of the 1870s, was a series of 30-different kinds of horse fossils discovered in Wyoming and Nebraska that were used as evidence for evolutionary “gradualism” and displayed at Yale University.
Marsh reconstructed and visually arranged these horse fossils in an inferential manner which attempted to logically convince many evolutionary series.

Marsh was proven wrong, as so many more recent scientific papers have proven.

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/lying ... horse.html

“It seems that if we really want folklore and myth, the place to go is not to the Bible but to the stories of human evolution in National Geographic, Time, Discover, and our high school and college textbooks. In truth, human evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups” (Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, p. 42).

“Darwinism does not look you squarely in the eye” (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 217).

“When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble” (Phillip Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, 1999).

“Forgeries and frauds are not all that uncommon in the science world” (Paul Chambers, Bones of Contention, p. 248).

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth).

“The impression that scientists think rationally and fairly is a simplistic myth. The fact is they are subject to the same human failings as the rest of us. Looking inside the ivory towers we find the familiar power establishments, personality conflicts, and intellectual blind spots brought about by philosophical presuppositions” (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 280).

“Within the English-speaking world, Darwin’s theory of evolution remains the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else. No matter the effort made by biologists, the thing continues to elicit the same reaction it has always elicited: You’ve got to be kidding, right?” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, p. 186).

The horse chart was given new lease on life in a popular 1951 textbook by George Simpson. He wrote, “The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. ... There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative” (Horses, Oxford University Press, 1951).

1. A major problem with all of this is that evolutionists themselves know and admit that the horse chart is not accurate.

Joseph Birdsell, in his 1975 book Human Evolution, said that “much of this story is incorrect” (p. 169).

Francis Hitching observes, “Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice” (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 19).

George Simpson, who was so dogmatic about horse evolution in 1951, had changed his tune by 1953, claiming that generations of students had been misinformed about the real meaning of the evolution of the horse (The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 259). That same year, Simpson wrote, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equuus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Life of the Past, pp. 125, 127).

In 1954, Swedish geneticist N. Heribert-Nilsson wrote, “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. ... The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is a very artificial one, since it was put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation” (Synthetische Artbildung, Gleerup, Sweden: Lund University, cited from White and Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, p. 85).

In 1979 Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, made the following admission to Luther Sunderland in a taped interview for the New York State Education Department:

“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the Natural History Museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kind of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem” (Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 90, 91; Sunderland was commissioned by the New York State Education Department to interview influential scientists at five natural history museums for a revision of the state’s Regents Biology Syllabus).

Ten years later, Eldredge held the same opinion, calling the standard horse chart “lamentable” and “a classical case of paleontologic museology” (Life Pulse: Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record, 1989, p. 222).

In 1980, David Raup, curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, stated categorically that the horse chart is wrong.

“We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information” (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:22, 1979).

In 1980, Colin Patterson had the horse series removed from the British Natural History Museum in London because he questioned its authenticity, but an outcry from evolutionists forced its reinstatement.

In October 1980, the inaccuracy of the horse chart was admitted by the roughly 160 evolutionists that met at the Chicago Field Museum. In a report on that four-day meeting, Boyce Rensberger said:

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown” (Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1980, sec. 4, p. 15).

That is a bold admission!