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.

[SiNcE_1985]

We see it happening everyday in populations of living things.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc.

That is all we see in everyday 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.

Yup. We know so little, and you know so much.

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?

If God did anything, that serves as a defeater of atheism, don't you think?

Second, if abiogenesis is false, then evolution cannot be true, on atheism.

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'm only interested in evidence that demonstrates evolution, without God.

My beef is with atheists, and atheism...not necessarily theistic evolution.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Which God?

[SiNcE_1985]

What is lacking in molecular phylogenetics?

It's lacking the explanatory power, to rule out what we can call the common designer theory.

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?

Pay close attention to what I'm about to say, because I don't want us talking past each other.

I will explain my position.

Now my position is, abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE.

So, let's call this^ P1.

P1 helps set the framework of any proceeding claims.

So, based on P1, evolution, by default, is also IMPOSSIBLE (on atheism).

So, any evidence you present for evolution, such as anything related to anything at the molecular level (cells, genes, DNA, etc), I cannot logically look at it under any naturalistic microscope (no pun intended).

So, I can only look at it under a supernaturalistic microscope (according to the truth value of P1).

And under that microscope, I can only, logically, see COMMON DESIGN(ER).

According to common design theory, the reason there are similarities in DNA, cells, molecules, etc...is because the Designer used the same stuff to create all living things.

Just like a chef/cook can create a variety of potato dishes (potato wedges, french fries, potato scallops, potato dices, hash browns, baked potatoes, mashed potatoes, potato salad, potato chips)...all with the same stuff....POTATOES.

Now, all that being said, there is NO logical way, that you can be an atheist, and completely hop, skip, and jump over abiogenesis, and land at "evolution is true".

Because on atheism, abiogenesis MUST be true...but that is precisely what ISN'T true (or at the very least, hasn't been shown to be true).
....

So, that is my current stance...and has always BEEN my stance...and will continue to be my stance.

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.

That would be an entirely different debate.

You're sure that it doesn't, but you seem to have no idea why.

I do.

[The Barbarian]

We see it happening everyday in populations of living things.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc.

That's microevolution. Evolutionary changes within a species. Would you like some examples?

That is all we see in everyday populations of living things.

No. occasionally, we see a new species evolve. Macroevolutionary change.

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. [/quote]

Yup. We know so little, and you know so much.

With Kent, it's not so much what he doesn't know. It's what he knows that ain't so. Once, he even declared that cavemen killed T. rex by "tearing off their tiny arms." Yep. He actually said that...
https://www.oldearth.org/argument/D63_c ... cience.htm

The origin of life is 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?

https://www.oldearth.org/argument/D63_c ... ence.htmIf God did anything, that serves as a defeater of atheism, don't you think?[/quote]

And if He did it as He says in the Bible, it's a defeater for YE creationism.

https://www.oldearth.org/argument/D63_c ... .htmSecond, if abiogenesis is false, then evolution cannot be true[/quote]

No, you got that wrong. If God poofed living things into being instead of having the earth bring them forth, evolution would still work exactly the way we see it happening now. And as you learned, even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species


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'm only interested in evidence that demonstrates evolution, without God.

Why not just accept it God's way? You can imagine the universe without God, but I don't think you'll find it useful.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Which God?

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.


That God.

[The Barbarian]

What is lacking in molecular phylogenetics?

It's lacking the explanatory power, to rule out what we can call the common designer theory.

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?

Pay close attention to what I'm about to say, because I don't want us talking past each other.

I will explain my position.

Now my position is, abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE.

God says it happened. See Genesis 1:24. I'll take God's word on it. You should, too.

And under that microscope, I can only, logically, see COMMON DESIGN(ER).

That won't work. You see, "common designer" can't explain homologies. Why would the bones in fish fins, dog legs, bat and pterosaur wings, whale fins and human arms and hands all be the same? It's a complete mystery to YE creationists, but in terms of genetics, development, and fossil record, it makes perfect sense. Homology shows that common descent is a fact.

Now, all that being said, there is NO logical way, that you can be an atheist, and completely hop, skip, and jump over abiogenesis, and land at "evolution is true".

As you learned, abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with evolution. How life began has no impact on the way evolution works.

Because on atheism, abiogenesis MUST be true...but that is precisely what ISN'T true (or at the very least, hasn't been shown to be true).

God says it's true. And so far, science backs Him up. Not that He needs the back-up. Why not just believe Him? He wouldn't lie to you.

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.

The fact that genetics and molecular biology shows the same descent as we find in the fossil record is powerful evidence for common descent. Why not just accept it God's way?

[SiNcE_1985]

That's microevolution. Evolutionary changes within a species. Would you like some examples?

Microevolution is the extent of evolution.

No. occasionally, we see a new species evolve. Macroevolutionary change.

A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are different species, but they are still the same kind of animal.

Canine.

This is not macroevolution. This is micro.

With Kent, it's not so much what he doesn't know. It's what he knows that ain't so. Once, he even declared that cavemen killed T. rex by "tearing off their tiny arms." Yep. He actually said that...
https://www.oldearth.org/argument/D63_c ... cience.htm

He also once declared that evolution is false...and I agree with him on that one.

And if He did it as He says in the Bible, it's a defeater for YE creationism.

YE vs OE is more of an "in house" disagreement among believers (as it relates to the Bible).

I can care less, either way. As long as in the end, God did it.

Why not just accept it God's way? You can imagine the universe without God, but I don't think you'll find it useful.

Why not just accept it God's way?

I do.

That God.

"And it was so". Not that "it took hundreds of millions of years, and then it was so".

[SiNcE_1985]

That won't work. You see, "common designer" can't explain homologies. Why would the bones in fish fins, dog legs, bat and pterosaur wings, whale fins and human arms and hands all be the same?

When you pop the hood of a Honda Civic and compare the parts to the Honda Accord, why would you see similar, interchangeable parts?

Answer?

Common Designer.

The same blueprint, the same parts, the same like-minded engineers (designers), yet, different cars.

Common designer(s).

God.

It's a complete mystery to YE creationists, but in terms of genetics, development, and fossil record, it makes perfect sense. Homology shows that common descent is a fact.

Young, or old, it ain't a mystery to me.

As you learned, abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with evolution. How life began has no impact on the way evolution works.

It does.

If it is impossible for life to arise naturally (on atheism), then it is impossible for life to evolve.

You cant have life evolving, if you don't have life originating in the first place.

Until you get a viable, plausible theory for abiogenesis, you actually don't have a theory for evolution.

God says it's true. And so far, science backs Him up. Not that He needs the back-up. Why not just believe Him? He wouldn't lie to you.

Dogs produce dogs.

The fact that genetics and molecular biology shows the same descent as we find in the fossil record is powerful evidence for common descent. Why not just accept it God's way?

Funny, you have evolution occuring before the fall of man (when sin and death entered the world).

Yet, according to the theory of evolution, the weak must die in order for the strong to survive and dominate the gene pool.

Hmm, sounds like, according to you and the TOE, death occurred before sin, which contradicts scripture, that sin occurred before death.

You are contradicting scripture, is what I am trying to say.

Evolution has no part in the Biblical creation account.

So you can kill the "It's God's way" stuff.

[The Barbarian]

That won't work. You see, "common designer" can't explain homologies. Why would the bones in fish fins, dog legs, bat and pterosaur wings, whale fins and human arms and hands all be the same?

When you pop the hood of a Honda Civic and compare the parts to the Honda Accord, why would you see similar, interchangeable parts?

Answer?

Common Designer.

You've confused "similar" with "homologous." The flippers of whales and the wings of bats aren't similar. They are homologous. They are very, very different structures, but they are composed of the same tissues of identical origin. They just evolved to very different functions. It's a complete mystery to YE creationists, but in terms of genetics, development, and fossil record, it makes perfect sense. Homology shows that common descent is a fact.

Who would be wise and powerful enough to create a world in which such remarkable things would happen naturally?

God.

Yep

As you learned, abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with evolution. How life began has no impact on the way evolution works.

It does.

Wrong. Makes no difference at all. As you learned, even Darwin supposed that God created the first living things.

If it is impossible for life to arise naturally

God says that the earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too.

then it is impossible for life to evolve.

As you learned, no matter how life began, it would evolve the same way we see it happen now. Evolutionary theory assumes life began, and describes how it changes over time.

Until you get a viable, plausible theory for abiogenesis, you actually don't have a theory for evolution.

We have God's word on it. That should be good enough for you. But science has accumulated a great deal of evidence indicating that God is correct. Want to learn about it?

God says it's true. And so far, science backs Him up. Not that He needs the back-up. Why not just believe Him? He wouldn't lie to you.

Dogs produce dogs.

Originally, an extinct species of wolf produced dogs. Want to learn how we know?

The fact that genetics and molecular biology shows the same descent as we find in the fossil record is powerful evidence for common descent. Why not just accept it God's way?

Funny, you have evolution occuring before the fall of man (when sin and death entered the world).

Sin is not necessary for evolution. And the death God spoke of to Adam was not a physical death. Would you like to learn how we know this?

Yet, according to the theory of evolution, the weak must die in order for the strong to survive and dominate the gene pool.

It's not the weak and the strong. You're falling back into Kent's imaginary ideas of evolution. Why not take a little time to learn what it is? Could save you a lot of embarrassment.

You are contradicting scripture, is what I am trying to say.

I'm contradicting your new revision of God's word. Why not just accept it as it is?

Evolution has no part in the Biblical creation account.

Neither do protons and electromagnetic forces, and many other things that are true. But abiogenesis is mentioned. None of that is what Genesis is about. If you obsess about those things, you'll miss the entire message of Genesis.

So you can kill the "It's God's way" stuff.

You can accept His word, or you can follow Kent and twist it around to fit your own wishes. But His word remains, in spite of your denials. Why not set your pride aside and just let it be His way?

[SiNcE_1985]

You've confused "similar" with "homologous." The flippers of whales and the wings of bats aren't similar. They are homologous. They are very, very different structures, but they are composed of the same tissues of identical origin.

This is like seeing one big branch that sprouted from a tree, and on the front edge of the big branch, there are 5 small branches.

I guess that is homologous...and we can determine that the human hand evolved from a tree, because the tree branch resembles a human arm and hand.

Or, how about the spoon-fork?

I guess millions of years ago, in a stainless steel factory, forks and spoons evolved, and the spoon-fork is the transitional form between the two.

Laughable.

They just evolved to very different functions.

That is the theory...not evidence for the theory.

That is like me telling an unbeliever that Jesus "just rose from the dead".

Sure, that is the claim...and anyone can claim anything.

But the claim, and evidence for the claim are two different things.

It's a complete mystery to YE creationists, but in terms of genetics, development, and fossil record, it makes perfect sense. Homology shows that common descent is a fact.

Similar genetics means, the designer used the same genetic code (alphabet) to create different sentences (living beings).

Same alphabet, just different words.

When I read "Hamlet", I am gonna see the same letters in that book, that I'm going to see in "Green Eggs and Ham".

Same alphabet, just different arrangements of letters and words.

That's all genetics is. The same genetic information, arranged differently for the makeup for X organism.

The genetic/DNA are similar, because the alphabet (genetic information) is the same.

And the fossil record means nothing, and is a farce.

Who would be wise and powerful enough to create a world in which such remarkable things would happen naturally?

God. Too bad it didn't happen that way, tho.

As you learned, no matter how life began, it would evolve the same way we see it happen now. Evolutionary theory assumes life began, and describes how it changes over time.

Since I'm learning so much, how about I learn even more.

If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true (without God).

I am here to learn, oh wise teacher.

We have God's word on it. That should be good enough for you. But science has accumulated a great deal of evidence indicating that God is correct. Want to learn about it?

God says it's true. And so far, science backs Him up. Not that He needs the back-up. Why not just believe Him? He wouldn't lie to you.

God didn't tell you that. Darwin did.

Originally, an extinct species of wolf produced dogs. Want to learn how we know?

Micro.

Sin is not necessary for evolution.

I equated sin with death, as the Bible does.The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)

Even to evolve as a person, the old you has to die, while the new you persists.

And the death God spoke of to Adam was not a physical death. Would you like to learn how we know this?

Adam died both physically and spiritually after he disobeyed God.

It's not the weak and the strong. You're falling back into Kent's imaginary ideas of evolution. Why not take a little time to learn what it is? Could save you a lot of embarrassment.

Go ahead, embarrass me.

Tell me how I am wrong in what I stated.

"You just don't understand evolution".

"That's not what evolution says/means".

This is always what they accuse us of, as if they are soooo smart...and we are soooo dumb.

As if we don't have the brain capacity to comprehend this dumb, false theory lol.

Neither do protons and electromagnetic forces

, and many other things that are true.

Yeah, but I'm not the one attempting to make the case about those specifics being mentioned in the Bible, as you are doing with evolution...am I?

But abiogenesis is mentioned. None of that is what Genesis is about. If you obsess about those things, you'll miss the entire message of Genesis.

Abiogenesis contradicts "God did it".

You can accept His word, or you can follow Kent and twist it around to fit your own wishes. But His word remains, in spite of your denials. Why not set your pride aside and just let it be His way?

You can follow Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, while I follow Jesus Christ, the Bible, and anyone who believes in true Biblical teachings.

[The Barbarian]

That's microevolution. Evolutionary changes within a species. Would you like some examples?

Microevolution is the extent of evolution.

No. That's a common misconception among YE creationists, but it's false.

Macroevolution
Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

And then...
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time.
...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the churchthe belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... EWhVx5vis8

Occasionally, we see a new species evolve. Macroevolutionary change.

A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are different species, but they are still the same kind of animal.
Canine. This is not macroevolution. This is micro.

All the same family. Canidae. Just like humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos are all in the same family Hominidae. So by your revision of "microevolution", the common descent of humans and other apes is "microevolution." You sure you want to do that? I would think you'd want to stay with the actual definition of the word.

Rock and hard place.

With Kent, it's not so much what he doesn't know. It's what he knows that ain't so. Once, he even declared that cavemen killed T. rex by "tearing off their tiny arms." Yep. He actually said that...
https://www.oldearth.org/argument/D63_c ... cience.htm [/quote]

He also once declared that evolution is false.

Like most creationists, he confused evolution (which we see going on constantly around us) and common descent (which is a consequence of evolution). He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?

And if He did it as He says in the Bible, it's a defeater for YE creationism.

YE vs OE is more of an "in house" disagreement among believers (as it relates to the Bible).

I can care less, either way. As long as in the end, God did it.

If you'll admit that much, why not just accept the way He did it?
Why not just accept it God's way?

I do.

For example, you deny abiogenesis, which God tells us is the way He created living things in the beginning. You deny evolution which is observed going on in all living populations.
Why not just accept it His way?

"And it was so". Not that "it took hundreds of millions of years, and then it was so".

So you won't believe Him because He didn't give you a precise timeline? If you obsess on these things, you miss the entire message of Genesis. Not that you'll go to hell for being a YE creationist. But if you'd be willing to accept all of His word as it is, you'd have a better relationship with Him.

[Clownboat]

If abiogenesis is false, how can evolution be true (without God).

The Barbarian is doing a great job of addressing your points. I just want to expand on this to hopefully get you to a better understanding.

For the sake of debate, we could grant the idea that the Christian God is what initially started life on this planet and then go on to discuss evolution. Just like we could grant the idea that invisible pixies created life on this planet and then go on to discuss evolution.
Abiogenesis can be false and maybe even is, but that has nothing to do with how populations of animals change once they exist. That's when evolution enters the discussion, not before.

I am here to learn, oh wise teacher.

Please, I beg you to show that this is true.
Do you now understand how evolution has NOTHING to do with any claim about how life arose? Your preferred god concept could be what started life on this planet and the Theory of Evolution could still be valid. Do you understand this or not? It's crucial in this discussion.