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.

[The Barbarian]

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.


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.

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.

In fact, we see lateral gene transfer evolved in evolution of prokaryotes (bacteria and their like) constantly. I gave you one instance. Would you like some details? But it doesn't happen much, if at all, with eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, and the like). I asked you if you could name even one speciation that happened by lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes. I gather you realized that no one can.

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

[marke]

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.


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.

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.

In fact, we see lateral gene transfer evolved in evolution of prokaryotes (bacteria and their like) constantly. I gave you one instance. Would you like some details? But it doesn't happen much, if at all, with eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, and the like). I asked you if you could name even one speciation that happened by lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes. I gather you realized that no one can.

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

However genetic data, which confirms earlier evolutionary phylogenies to a high degree of precision, does make it impossible to argue against common descent scientifically. As Dr. Wood admits, there is abundant evidence for evolution, and it works well as a scientific theory. He merely stands on his faith in God and his interpretation of scripture. It's an honest and even commendable position.

Like his fellow YE creationists, Dr. Kurt Wise (who says that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory") and Dr. Harold Coffin who says that without the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very ancient, Dr. Wood is too honest to deny the evidence.

[marke]

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

However genetic data, which confirms earlier evolutionary phylogenies to a high degree of precision, does make it impossible to argue against common descent scientifically. As Dr. Wood admits, there is abundant evidence for evolution, and it works well as a scientific theory. He merely stands on his faith in God and his interpretation of scripture. It's an honest and even commendable position.

Like his fellow YE creationists, Dr. Kurt Wise (who says that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory") and Dr. Harold Coffin who says that without the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very ancient, Dr. Wood is too honest to deny the evidence.

Fossils do not prove through genetics that evolution occurred.

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

However genetic data, which confirms earlier evolutionary phylogenies to a high degree of precision, does make it impossible to argue against common descent scientifically. As Dr. Wood admits, there is abundant evidence for evolution, and it works well as a scientific theory. He merely stands on his faith in God and his interpretation of scripture. It's an honest and even commendable position.

Like his fellow YE creationists, Dr. Kurt Wise (who says that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory") and Dr. Harold Coffin who says that without the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very ancient, Dr. Wood is too honest to deny the evidence.

Fossils do not prove through genetics that evolution occurred.

Fossils and genetics are independent sources of evidence. One of the key facts supporting common descent is that they match up nicely.

[marke]

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

However genetic data, which confirms earlier evolutionary phylogenies to a high degree of precision, does make it impossible to argue against common descent scientifically. As Dr. Wood admits, there is abundant evidence for evolution, and it works well as a scientific theory. He merely stands on his faith in God and his interpretation of scripture. It's an honest and even commendable position.

Like his fellow YE creationists, Dr. Kurt Wise (who says that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory") and Dr. Harold Coffin who says that without the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very ancient, Dr. Wood is too honest to deny the evidence.

Fossils do not prove through genetics that evolution occurred.

Fossils and genetics are independent sources of evidence. One of the key facts supporting common descent is that they match up nicely.

Data can be interpreted to harmonize with evolution theories but the evidence does not dictate assumptions of evolution.

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

However genetic data, which confirms earlier evolutionary phylogenies to a high degree of precision, does make it impossible to argue against common descent scientifically. As Dr. Wood admits, there is abundant evidence for evolution, and it works well as a scientific theory. He merely stands on his faith in God and his interpretation of scripture. It's an honest and even commendable position.

Like his fellow YE creationists, Dr. Kurt Wise (who says that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory") and Dr. Harold Coffin who says that without the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very ancient, Dr. Wood is too honest to deny the evidence.

Fossils do not prove through genetics that evolution occurred.

Fossils and genetics are independent sources of evidence. One of the key facts supporting common descent is that they match up nicely.

Data can be interpreted to harmonize with evolution theories but the evidence does not dictate assumptions of evolution.

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you. And they actually know what the evidence is. They simply prefer to put their religious beliefs above the evidence and honestly say so. That's the reality.

[marke]

Evolution is true because we observe it happening in populations, and as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits, there is a great deal of evidence for it. Would you like to learn why Dr. Wood admits that there is much evidence for evolution, even as he prefers to believe his understanding of scripture?

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/t ... ution.html

Minor changes and adaptations do not prove major evolutionary changes that would have been required for a single common ancestor to have divided itself and multiplied into every species of living creature on earth.

However genetic data, which confirms earlier evolutionary phylogenies to a high degree of precision, does make it impossible to argue against common descent scientifically. As Dr. Wood admits, there is abundant evidence for evolution, and it works well as a scientific theory. He merely stands on his faith in God and his interpretation of scripture. It's an honest and even commendable position.

Like his fellow YE creationists, Dr. Kurt Wise (who says that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory") and Dr. Harold Coffin who says that without the Bible, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very ancient, Dr. Wood is too honest to deny the evidence.

Fossils do not prove through genetics that evolution occurred.

Fossils and genetics are independent sources of evidence. One of the key facts supporting common descent is that they match up nicely.

Data can be interpreted to harmonize with evolution theories but the evidence does not dictate assumptions of evolution.

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you. And they actually know what the evidence is. They simply prefer to put their religious beliefs above the evidence and honestly say so. That's the reality.

I don't subscribe to the idea that majority opinion, opinion of certain groups or sects, or traditional opinions must be accept as scientific proof without being proven.

[benchwarmer]

I don't subscribe to the idea that majority opinion, opinion of certain groups or sects, or traditional opinions must be accept as scientific proof without being proven.

There is no such thing as 'scientific proof' so the standard you are pretending exists does not.

Scientific theories live and die by observable data, repeatability, and the ability to predict results. It is the best method we have to date and the fact that we are having this conversation via computers over a worldwide network is evidence it works very well indeed.

On the other hand, religious faith positions are just that. They are often based on nothing but bald assertions, usually from things written down long ago before we knew how many things worked. There's a faith position for just about anything and a vast array of possible religions to choose them from. You are free to believe whatever you like. Fortunately reality doesn't care about anyone's belief position. What we observe is what we observe.

[marke]

I don't subscribe to the idea that majority opinion, opinion of certain groups or sects, or traditional opinions must be accept as scientific proof without being proven.

There is no such thing as 'scientific proof' so the standard you are pretending exists does not.

Scientific theories live and die by observable data, repeatability, and the ability to predict results. It is the best method we have to date and the fact that we are having this conversation via computers over a worldwide network is evidence it works very well indeed.

On the other hand, religious faith positions are just that. They are often based on nothing but bald assertions, usually from things written down long ago before we knew how many things worked. There's a faith position for just about anything and a vast array of possible religions to choose them from. You are free to believe whatever you like. Fortunately reality doesn't care about anyone's belief position. What we observe is what we observe.

How could there be proof of evolution when faith in Darwinian macro evolution evolution is not even remotely based on observable science?