Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3843 times
Been thanked: 2308 times

Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #1

Post by 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.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2506
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2275 times
Been thanked: 949 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #161

Post by benchwarmer »

marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:48 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:49 pm
marke wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 10:08 am 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.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Someone proposed something and through peer review/later evidence it was shown to be wrong. Welcome to science, that's how it's supposed to work. Did you think otherwise?

This is the clear difference between science and religion. In science, if new evidence or lack of repeatability show something is wrong, the wrong thing is dropped and a new hypothesis/theory is put forward. In religion, it doesn't matter what evidence is found (even within the religious writings) many just stick to their preferred beliefs and call it a day.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 674 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #162

Post by The Barbarian »

marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:48 am

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).
Raup was criticizing orthogenetic interpretations of evolution, as opposed to Darwinian concepts of an evolutionary bush, containing many lineages. As usual, Darwin's interpretation turned out to be correct.
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!

[/b]

The error in interpretation was in supposing the (orginally) small number of species showed a straight line of horses from Hyracotherium to Equus. As time when on, we found more and more species and it became clear that the evolution of horses was a Darwinian bush, not a straight sequence. So there were many lines of evolution from Hyracotherium, only one branch of which (Equus) survives today.
Image

Even within Equus, there has been a bush of evolutionary change:
Image

Ironically Stephen Gould included horses as among the taxa for which evolution could be shown within species in the fossil record.

Would you like to go though one of these many lineages with me? It's not what they told you. Remember, you are their victim only as long as you refuse to find out for yourself.

Contrary to your assumption, there are a huge number of horse transitional fossils. Indeed, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise has admitted that the large number of transitional horse fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutilnary theory."

pp 218-219
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

He's not alone:

The most striking thing about perissodactyl evolution is that we can see the very earliest stages of their diversification preserved in the fossil record. For many years, paleontologists have focused on the archaic hoofed mammal (“condylarth”) group known as phenacodonts as the sister taxon of perissodactyls (Radinsky 1966, 1969; Thewissen and Domning 1992). These creatures were widespread around the Holarctic region of Eurasia and North America in the Paleocene and early Eocene and do indeed share many characters in common with perissodactyls. Phenacodonts, in turn, provide a link between perissodactyls and the most primitive clades of ungulates (Prothero et al. 1988). Moving even closer to true perissodactyls, we have the late Paleocene Chinese fossil known as Radinskya, which is a close sister group to almost all the earliest perissodactyls (McKenna et al. 1989). Known from a partial skull and a few other fragments, its teeth are more primitive than any bona fide perissodactyl, yet it shows some derived characters that make it a good sister taxon to that order. However, it is so primitive in most of its characters that McKenna et al. (1989) were unsure about its taxonomic assignment.

From these Asian Paleocene roots, there was a rapid diversification of perissodactyls in Europe and North America in the early Eocene. The earliest members of the horse, rhino, tapir, and brontothere lineages in North America are so similar to one another that only subtle features of the teeth and the skull allow us to tell them apart (Fig. 1). If you look at their fossils today, you would never guess that they would eventually diversify into such disparate groups as horses, rhinos, and tapirs, yet this is the evidence from the fossil record. This point was driven home to me while working on an undergraduate research project on early Eocene mammals from the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. The specimens of the earliest horses (now called Protorohippus, according to Froehlich 2002) and the earliest tapiroids (Homogalax) were virtually identical, except that the Homogalax molars had slightly better-developed cross-crests, a signature of the teeth of all later tapiroids. This incredible degree of similarity is also found in their skulls and skeletons (Fig. 1). In addition, the earliest relatives of the brontotheres look much like early horses and tapiroids. By the late early Eocene and middle Eocene, all of these lineages had diverged enough that tapiroids are much easier to distinguish from horses, and brontotheres are distinct from both. This is powerful evidence about how lineages can be traced back to common ancestors that are virtually indistinguishable from one another.

Prothero, D.R. Evolutionary Transitions in the Fossil Record of Terrestrial Hoofed Mammals. Evo Edu Outreach 2, 289–302 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1

marke
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #163

Post by marke »

benchwarmer wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:50 am
marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:48 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:49 pm
marke wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 10:08 am 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.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Someone proposed something and through peer review/later evidence it was shown to be wrong. Welcome to science, that's how it's supposed to work. Did you think otherwise?

This is the clear difference between science and religion. In science, if new evidence or lack of repeatability show something is wrong, the wrong thing is dropped and a new hypothesis/theory is put forward. In religion, it doesn't matter what evidence is found (even within the religious writings) many just stick to their preferred beliefs and call it a day.
The assumed progression of the evolution of the horse that was promoted as factual science for decades was in reality just erroneous assumption, just like all Darwinian macro evolutionist assumptions.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6034
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6810 times
Been thanked: 3240 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #164

Post by brunumb »

marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:48 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:49 pm
marke wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 10:08 am 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!


Your response completely fails to address my response. What a waste of time.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 674 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #165

Post by The Barbarian »

marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:08 pm The assumed progression of the evolution of the horse that was promoted as factual science for decades was in reality just erroneous assumption, just like all Darwinian macro evolutionist assumptions.
You have it exactly backwards. Darwin's view of evolution was opposed to orthogenesis (straight lineages). This is Darwin's view, laid out in 1837:
Image

Once more, Darwin had it right. As you learned, paleontology has found the same pattern in the evolution of horses, which your fellow creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Is Dr. Wise a creationist? Yes, an affirmed YE creationist. But an honest and knowledgeable one, who realizes what the evidence shows, but puts his faith in scripture as he sees it, above the evidence. It's an honest and honorable position, albeit one that I cannot agree with.

marke
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #166

Post by marke »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:10 pm
marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:08 pm The assumed progression of the evolution of the horse that was promoted as factual science for decades was in reality just erroneous assumption, just like all Darwinian macro evolutionist assumptions.
You have it exactly backwards. Darwin's view of evolution was opposed to orthogenesis (straight lineages). This is Darwin's view, laid out in 1837:
Image

Once more, Darwin had it right. As you learned, paleontology has found the same pattern in the evolution of horses, which your fellow creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Is Dr. Wise a creationist? Yes, an affirmed YE creationist. But an honest and knowledgeable one, who realizes what the evidence shows, but puts his faith in scripture as he sees it, above the evidence. It's an honest and honorable position, albeit one that I cannot agree with.
AI Overview
Learn more
"Darwin's Tree of Life" is considered largely debunked by modern scientists, as recent research, particularly in genetics, has revealed that the evolutionary history of life is far more complex than a simple tree-like structure, with significant horizontal gene transfer between species creating a more web-like pattern, meaning genes can be exchanged across different branches, not just passed down vertically; therefore, the "tree" concept is not an accurate representation of how life evolved.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 674 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #167

Post by The Barbarian »

marke wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:22 am
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:10 pm
marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:08 pm The assumed progression of the evolution of the horse that was promoted as factual science for decades was in reality just erroneous assumption, just like all Darwinian macro evolutionist assumptions.
You have it exactly backwards. Darwin's view of evolution was opposed to orthogenesis (straight lineages). This is Darwin's view, laid out in 1837:
Image

Once more, Darwin had it right. As you learned, paleontology has found the same pattern in the evolution of horses, which your fellow creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Is Dr. Wise a creationist? Yes, an affirmed YE creationist. But an honest and knowledgeable one, who realizes what the evidence shows, but puts his faith in scripture as he sees it, above the evidence. It's an honest and honorable position, albeit one that I cannot agree with.
AI Overview
Learn more
"Darwin's Tree of Life" is considered largely debunked by modern scientists, as recent research, particularly in genetics, has revealed that the evolutionary history of life is far more complex than a simple tree-like structure, with significant horizontal gene transfer between species creating a more web-like pattern, meaning genes can be exchanged across different branches, not just passed down vertically; therefore, the "tree" concept is not an accurate representation of how life evolved.
This is why you shouldn't depend on AI. As you see, genetics has confirmed the bushlike (not treelike) structure of evolutionary change. Notice the phylogeny of modern Equus using only genetic data. Lateral gene transfer happens in various ways, but is not a significant factor in macroevolutionary change. Can you name even one eukaryotic speciation event that happened by lateral gene transfer? Neither can anyone else.

Lateral gene transfer is pretty common in prokaryotes (bacteria and the like) but not so common in eukaryotes. This is why taxonomy of bacteria is so difficult. My Bergey's Manual from 1975 is very different from one published in the 21st century. Because genetics has revealed lot of this going on. It's a common reproductive strategy in bacteria. They transfer plasmids (small units of DNA) to each other though pili. It's the way the nylon gene became so widespread, for example. But not so common in organisms with nucleated cells, for a variety of reasons.

Nice try, but AI is no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.

marke
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #168

Post by marke »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:36 am
marke wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 2:22 am
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:10 pm
marke wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:08 pm The assumed progression of the evolution of the horse that was promoted as factual science for decades was in reality just erroneous assumption, just like all Darwinian macro evolutionist assumptions.
You have it exactly backwards. Darwin's view of evolution was opposed to orthogenesis (straight lineages). This is Darwin's view, laid out in 1837:
Image

Once more, Darwin had it right. As you learned, paleontology has found the same pattern in the evolution of horses, which your fellow creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Is Dr. Wise a creationist? Yes, an affirmed YE creationist. But an honest and knowledgeable one, who realizes what the evidence shows, but puts his faith in scripture as he sees it, above the evidence. It's an honest and honorable position, albeit one that I cannot agree with.
AI Overview
Learn more
"Darwin's Tree of Life" is considered largely debunked by modern scientists, as recent research, particularly in genetics, has revealed that the evolutionary history of life is far more complex than a simple tree-like structure, with significant horizontal gene transfer between species creating a more web-like pattern, meaning genes can be exchanged across different branches, not just passed down vertically; therefore, the "tree" concept is not an accurate representation of how life evolved.
This is why you shouldn't depend on AI. As you see, genetics has confirmed the bushlike (not treelike) structure of evolutionary change.

Hence, the felling of Darwin's evolutionary tree, proving his guesses were all wet.


Notice the phylogeny of modern Equus using only genetic data. Lateral gene transfer happens in various ways, but is not a significant factor in macroevolutionary change. Can you name even one eukaryotic speciation event that happened by lateral gene transfer? Neither can anyone else.

How does one go about proving lateral gene transfer did anything or that some other speculative avenue for miraculous speciation changes even occurred at all?

Lateral gene transfer is pretty common in prokaryotes (bacteria and the like) but not so common in eukaryotes. This is why taxonomy of bacteria is so difficult. My Bergey's Manual from 1975 is very different from one published in the 21st century. Because genetics has revealed lot of this going on. It's a common reproductive strategy in bacteria. They transfer plasmids (small units of DNA) to each other though pili. It's the way the nylon gene became so widespread, for example. But not so common in organisms with nucleated cells, for a variety of reasons.

Nice try, but AI is no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 232 times
Been thanked: 674 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #169

Post by The Barbarian »

marke wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:03 pm
AI Overview
Learn more
"Darwin's Tree of Life" is considered largely debunked by modern scientists, as recent research, particularly in genetics, has revealed that the evolutionary history of life is far more complex than a simple tree-like structure, with significant horizontal gene transfer between species creating a more web-like pattern, meaning genes can be exchanged across different branches, not just passed down vertically; therefore, the "tree" concept is not an accurate representation of how life evolved.
This is why you shouldn't depend on AI. As you see, genetics has confirmed the bushlike (not treelike) structure of evolutionary change. Which is what Darwin proposed.

Hence, the felling of Darwin's evolutionary tree, proving his guesses were all wet.
I just showed you that Darwin correctly showed evolutionary descent as a bush rather than a tree.
Image

Your AI got that wrong. This is why AI is no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.


Notice the phylogeny of modern Equus using only genetic data. Lateral gene transfer happens in various ways, but is not a significant factor in macroevolutionary change. Can you name even one eukaryotic speciation event that happened by lateral gene transfer? Neither can anyone else.
marke wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:03 pm How does one go about proving lateral gene transfer


Material from an unrelated taxon. It's pretty common with viruses. Humans have lots of inactivated viral DNA. None of it produces speciation.

Lateral gene transfer is pretty common in prokaryotes (bacteria and the like) but not so common in eukaryotes. This is why taxonomy of bacteria is so difficult. My Bergey's Manual from 1975 is very different from one published in the 21st century. Because genetics has revealed lot of this going on. It's a common reproductive strategy in bacteria. They transfer plasmids (small units of DNA) to each other though pili. It's the way the nylon gene became so widespread, for example. But not so common in organisms with nucleated cells, for a variety of reasons.

marke
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:42 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

Post #170

Post by marke »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:54 pm
marke wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:03 pm
AI Overview
Learn more
"Darwin's Tree of Life" is considered largely debunked by modern scientists, as recent research, particularly in genetics, has revealed that the evolutionary history of life is far more complex than a simple tree-like structure, with significant horizontal gene transfer between species creating a more web-like pattern, meaning genes can be exchanged across different branches, not just passed down vertically; therefore, the "tree" concept is not an accurate representation of how life evolved.
This is why you shouldn't depend on AI. As you see, genetics has confirmed the bushlike (not treelike) structure of evolutionary change. Which is what Darwin proposed.

Hence, the felling of Darwin's evolutionary tree, proving his guesses were all wet.
I just showed you that Darwin correctly showed evolutionary descent as a bush rather than a tree.
Image

Your AI got that wrong. This is why AI is no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.


Notice the phylogeny of modern Equus using only genetic data. Lateral gene transfer happens in various ways, but is not a significant factor in macroevolutionary change. Can you name even one eukaryotic speciation event that happened by lateral gene transfer? Neither can anyone else.
marke wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2025 1:03 pm How does one go about proving lateral gene transfer


Material from an unrelated taxon. It's pretty common with viruses. Humans have lots of inactivated viral DNA. None of it produces speciation.

Lateral gene transfer is pretty common in prokaryotes (bacteria and the like) but not so common in eukaryotes. This is why taxonomy of bacteria is so difficult. My Bergey's Manual from 1975 is very different from one published in the 21st century. Because genetics has revealed lot of this going on. It's a common reproductive strategy in bacteria. They transfer plasmids (small units of DNA) to each other though pili. It's the way the nylon gene became so widespread, for example. But not so common in organisms with nucleated cells, for a variety of reasons.
If evolution were true then lateral gene transfer may be one possibility for how it could have occurred, but claiming evolution must have been true because evolutionists have come up with a theory as to what may have caused it to occur does not prove evolution occurred.

Post Reply