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]

Hey, you asked the question and I provided my answer...which is/was an informed no.

You've yet to provide evidence that your answer's informed.

In fact, we once discussed exactly this topic. I asked you to evaluate Kent Hovind's uninformed statement about molecular phylogenetics: "If you want to compare, uh, cytochrome C, then we're closest to a sunflower."

Instead, you told us this:

In a related question, do you think I'm right about that particular statement Hovind made? Was what he said wrong or am I wrong?

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with Hovind.

Is it still over your head? Have you done something in the meantime to more properly inform yourself? If you have, what's your opinion of Hovind's statement and why?

[The Barbarian]

If you think science and evidence are religion, your religion is a rather unusual one.

Whatever mechanism and/or process that is believed to produce the effects of..the origins of..

1. The universe
2. Life
3. Species

To name a few^.

That belief is a religion.

That is a very strange religion you have. For example, Darwin predicted how new species come about, a theory based on evidence. His theory has since been confirmed by observations of speciations. Now, some religions, like that of Aboriginal Australians, and YE creationists have divine poofing of species into existence. However the God of Christians tells us that He used nature to produce life, with living things being brought forth by the Earth. I'll go with His opinion.

However, scientists have gathered increasingly convincing evidence that God is right and YE creationists are wrong. Would you like to learn about some of that?

The "image" is in our minds and souls, not physical appearance. Jesus says that God is a spirit, and He says that a spirit has no body.

No one is denying that.

Well, some YE creationists do.

The point is; God created man.

I think all creationists admit that much. The point is that YE creationists disapprove of the way He did it.

Not nature created man.

God makes it clear that He used nature to create living things. He made it, after all; why wouldn't He do that?

That's not what God said. Have you considered Christianity? It fits the evidence better than your religion.

I read Genesis 1, and that's what I got out of it.

Not that I don't respect whatever your religion is, but I'd be happy to explain why I think Christianity is better.

[The Barbarian]

You've yet to provide evidence that your answer's informed.

In fact, we once discussed exactly this topic. I asked you to evaluate Kent Hovind's uninformed statement about molecular phylogenetics: "If you want to compare, uh, cytochrome C, then we're closest to a sunflower."

I hadn't heard that. Kent isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but all it takes is a brief google search to debunk that idea...



Notice that we are closest to other primates, precisely as evolutionary theory predicted.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #212]

Either you are being facetious here, or this has to be some of the worse display of reading comprehension I've ever witnessed.

[Difflugia]

I hadn't heard that. Kent isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but all it takes is a brief google search to debunk that idea...

It's from one of Hovind's debates. He was debating a biology professor and got a bit flustered during a Q&A session. He was forced to go a bit off script and just started spouting stuff. The video link goes straight to the cytochrome C nonsense.

[SiNcE_1985]

Hey, you asked the question and I provided my answer...which is/was an informed no.

You've yet to provide evidence that your answer's informed.

Funny, because I've yet to see persuasive evidence that evolution is true.

In fact, we once discussed exactly this topic. I asked you to evaluate Kent Hovind's uninformed statement about molecular phylogenetics: "If you want to compare, uh, cytochrome C, then we're closest to a sunflower."

Instead, you told us this:

In a related question, do you think I'm right about that particular statement Hovind made? Was what he said wrong or am I wrong?

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with Hovind.

Is it still over your head? Have you done something in the meantime to more properly inform yourself? If you have, what's your opinion of Hovind's statement and why?

Um, no...I don't need do research on evaporation to know that when it's raining outside, I'll get wet.

Besides that, abiogenesis is a problem for any evolutionary theory without a Cosmic Creator...and such a problem is independent of molecular phylogenetics, or any other bio-babble concept you want to throw in there.

I said all that to say this; I'm still rocking with Hovind.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #212]

Either you are being facetious here, or this has to be some of the worse display of reading comprehension I've ever witnessed.

Your religion, whatever it is, seems to regard science and evidence as "religion." Which is pretty odd.

Christianity certainly makes no such assertions.

[Clownboat]

Funny, because I've yet to see persuasive evidence that evolution is true.

Because you have yet to amend your thinking on the matter.

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory

You are free to challenge the current theory the seems to best explain the fact that populations change, but what you cannot do is claim that populations don't change, because they have and still do.

I said all that to say this; I'm still rocking with Hovind.

Just wanted to leave this one here for those of us that are familiar with Hovind.

[Difflugia]

Funny, because I've yet to see persuasive evidence that evolution is true.

What is lacking in molecular phylogenetics? You've asserted that it's not enough to demonstrate that evolution happened, but didn't expand on your claim. Since you offered to answer the "next question," my "next question" would be, "Why?" What do you know about molecular phylogenetics that the scientists don't?

Is it still over your head? Have you done something in the meantime to more properly inform yourself? If you have, what's your opinion of Hovind's statement and why?

Um, no...I don't need do research on evaporation to know that when it's raining outside, I'll get wet.

Besides that, abiogenesis is a problem for any evolutionary theory without a Cosmic Creator...and such a problem is independent of molecular phylogenetics, or any other bio-babble concept you want to throw in there.

Even if I accept for the sake of argument that Jesus genesised the first bio, that doesn't impact the question of whether or not molecular phylogenetics demonstrates conclusively that evolution happened. You're sure that it doesn't, but you seem to have no idea why.

I said all that to say this; I'm still rocking with Hovind.

Clearly.

[The Barbarian]

Hey, you asked the question and I provided my answer...which is/was an informed no.

You've yet to provide evidence that your answer's informed.

Funny, because I've yet to see persuasive evidence that evolution is true.

We see it happening everyday in populations of living things. Since you seem to admire Kent Hovind, I'm guessing you've confused Darwinian evolution (which is constantly observed) with common descent of living things, which is a consequence of evolution.

As you see from the evidence and link I posted, Kent is completely off base on his cytochrome C claim. Fact is, he knows no more than you seem to know about it.

Besides that, abiogenesis is a problem for any evolutionary theory without a Cosmic Creator...

It's not a problem for evolutionary theory at all. Evolutionary theory makes no claims whatever about how life started. If God had magically poofed the first living things into being, evolution would work exactly as we see it working now. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. Would you like me to show you that?

However, science has found more and more evidence that God was right when He told us that the earth brought forth living things. It's not about evolution, but if you'd like to learn how science is finding that God is right and creationists are wrong about the way life began, I can show you some of the evidence. Want to see it?

I said all that to say this; I'm still rocking with Hovind.

Why not just accept it God's way?