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.

[Clownboat]

All I see are animals producing their kind...I don't see anything remotely close to a reptile-to-bird process...or a land dwelling animal evolving and migrating to the sea process.

Let's test your logic and consistency shall we?
Did you see your Jesus get raised form the dead after being dead for 3 days?
Did you see the bodies of dead saints get out of their graves and walk Jerusalem?
Did you see a man live in a fish for days?
Did you see Jesus conjure up fishes and loaves of bread?
Did you see a God create life?
Your lack of logic and lack of consistency is noted. Tsk tsk.

You seem to acknowledge that populations of animals do change over time, but then you have invented some mechanism that at some point stops the changes from adding up over time. Why do you do this? What is the mechanism that you are proposing that stops these changes from adding up over time?

I'm not gonna be gaslighted by people telling me that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it...that the animals of yesterday was able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.

Did you see...
Once again, your lack of logic and lack of consistency is being noted.

It is a joke, a scam, and a deliberate deception by Satan to take what God has done, and misrepresent it....to take away God's glory and prestige.

I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

Justice...is coming.

Let's leave the scare tactics to terrorist please. You SHOULD be able to do better.

[Clownboat]

This again? Every time this topic comes up, you say that as if that renders the science of evolution wrong. Evolution predicts EXACTLY that. We tell you this every time. You seem to forget every time.

You cannot make someone learn something, if their eternal salvation depends on not knowing it.

[Clownboat]

About how many different taxa have you studied? How long have you studied each of them? What were your methods?

My method: Observe the results of animal birth.

How many dead bodies with liquified organs have you observed reanimating to life? Asking for a friend who is curious about logic and consistency.

Observe the never-failing pattern of animal mothers giving birth to offspring of the same kind as she.

What does this mean about the never-failing patter of death being the end of life? Same friend...

Then Behe and I disagree on the human/primate common descent.

Who is more qualified, you or Behe?

[SiNcE_1985]

I know this, which is why I said 'for the sake of debate' because you are closed off to any explanation that isn't your god.

The explanation (answer), is based on the nature of the question.

Therefore, by granting you the idea that your preferred god created first life, I was hoping we could then have an actual discussion about how populations of animals change over time.

Newsflash: everything begins and ends with God.

Readers, ask yourselves if you believe this person when they claim to know that abiogenesis is false. How could such a thing be known? It seems like someone is playing pretend.

Previously given reasons.

The Theory of Evolution best explains the changes we see and the new species that have emerged. If you disagree, please provide the mechanism that better explains not only the animals we see now on earth, but also in the fossil record so we can compare that to the ToE.

If you don't have a viable theory for abiogenesis which is based on your atheistic worldview, then you don't have a beginning mechanism.

The story starts from the beginning (abiogenesis), it doesn't start in the middle (evolution).

Your whole ToE, unravels immediately once abiogenesis is considered.

False. You do not understand such a thing. You believe such a thing because of faith. Readers will notice if you are replying with honesty or not.

As I said before, previously given reasons.

Or, you can create a thread on abiogenesis and I'll see you there.

If the theory of evolution is drowning in the middle of the ocean, abiogenesis is the large brick that is tied to it's ankles.

We all hear your faith based claims loud and clear and we are not even on a street corner.

What really matter is if you can show that you speak the truth about your claim. Making false claims about evolution is NOT to provide evidence for your own claims. Please provide evidence for the claims you are making and not against some false understanding of abiogenesis and evolution.

This here^ is the usual, typical filler that you guys use when you don't have anything to say in response to my points.

You attack my knowledge of the subject.

Paragraphs like this are used to make and win rhetorical points to audiences...while in reality, nothing of substance is given.

"He doesn't know what he is talking about", when accompanied by similar mumbo, such charges are entertaining and captivating for the audience to see or hear, and while they are so captivated with those charges, they are unaware (or distracted) from the sheer lack of substance for the totality of the accuser's response.

I find this happens more on the subject of evolution, than any other subject of contention.

Then your entire point is a fools errand. Atheism is to be without religion. A (without) theist (religion). You will be taken more seriously if you correct yourself here in place of a weak attempt to level the playing field (calling atheism a religion).

The Mother Nature that acts as a powerful and creative force, is pulling off the same stunts that my God did.

The only difference is, Mother Nature lacks a will and there is no cosmic accountability in the world she created.

That is literally the only difference.

So, atheism is kinda like a cross between a concept of natural deism and a natural pantheism.

We can call it, depantheism. Or, pandeism.

See what I mean? You are hard to take seriously when you spout such nonsense.
I'm open to the idea of a God creating life and possibly even using evolution to get to where we are now, but atheism is a lack of belief, not some belief system. Please amend your thinking on this matter.

No, do you see what I mean?

There is this fake modesty and open-mindedness here, yet in other threads/posts, I don't detect one shred of open-mindedness in you.

In fact, all I see is sheer closed-mindedness...accompanied by arrogance, anger, and smugness.

I agree that you can be wrong and also agree that evolution doesn't affect the Gospels. Any idea why you needed to include such a statement? I fear I have missed something.

Yeah, you've said on more than one occasion that the only reason I don't believe in evolution is because it doesn't fit my Bible narrative...and you've said this in one of your latest posts, as it pertains to my position.

Derp! That is the exact scenario I proposed! See above in bold. How are you missing this?
Once again, let's grant the idea that your preferred god created life on this planet for the sake of debate.

Um, no...we don't need to grant the idea that God did it.

First off, my position is simple: God did NOT use evolution as a preferred method to create life on this planet.

I say this boldly, with emphatic confidence.

Although I acknowledge that it is possible, I'm saying it did not happen...and the only reason I ever grant this idea is when I'm making the broader point on possibilities.

Second, we don't need to grant this idea, because that is NOT your position.

Your position is; there is NO GOD TO DO ANYTHING.

You've been arguing this position for almost 20 years on this forum, so there is no need to, based on the uncomfortably feeling that you get when abiogenesis is mentioned, suddenly grant the idea that God could have used evolution.

No, if there is no God, then there NO GOD.

Stand by your position.

Is not evolution the best explanation for what we see on earth? If not, for the love of all that is holy, please explain the better mechanism.

Christian theism, beginning in Gen 1.

It is clear that it is your god belief that is inhibiting your understanding, which is why I'm trying to allow for your preferred god as being the cause in hopes that we can then have a fruitful discussion. I'm trying very hard to work with you here and your stubbornness is being noted.

Oh, I am the stubborn one here? Ok.

[SiNcE_1985]

How many dead bodies with liquified organs have you observed reanimating to life? Asking for a friend who is curious about logic and consistency.

What does this mean about the never-failing patter of death being the end of life? Same friend...

Not so fast.

If former world's strongest man (Brian Shaw), can bench Press 530lbs....would you not think he could lift 225lbs?

Your belief he can lift 225lbs, is based on the background information you have of him lifting much heavier weight.

I'll let you ponder that for a minute or two.

Who is more qualified, you or Behe?

Is Behe infallible? Yes or no.

[SiNcE_1985]

Let's test your logic and consistency shall we?
Did you see your Jesus get raised form the dead after being dead for 3 days?
Did you see the bodies of dead saints get out of their graves and walk Jerusalem?
Did you see a man live in a fish for days?
Did you see Jesus conjure up fishes and loaves of bread?
Did you see a God create life?
Your lack of logic and lack of consistency is noted. Tsk tsk.

I've already addressed this.

You seem to acknowledge that populations of animals do change over time, but then you have invented some mechanism that at some point stops the changes from adding up over time. Why do you do this? What is the mechanism that you are proposing that stops these changes from adding up over time?

Because, there is no mechanism (on atheism) to get it started in the first place.

Again, I'm starting from the beginning of the story (life)...not the middle.

I understand it is convenient for you to turn a blind eye to abiogenesis..as it makes things uncomfortable...but your comfortability is not my concern...and I say so respectfully.

I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

Justice...is coming.

Let's leave the scare tactics to terrorist please. You SHOULD be able to do better.

It is what it is.

[Jose Fly]

Your whole ToE, unravels immediately once abiogenesis is considered.

No it doesn't...you've had several people try and explain it to you, but your lack of education, experience, and knowledge of biology prevents you from getting it. And your lack of humility prevents you from admitting to that fundamental ignorance.

You attack my knowledge of the subject.

Yes! You come in here making all sorts of boastful claims about biology, yet you have zero education, experience, or knowledge in/of it. And on top of that you say ridiculous things like what I quoted above, which only shoves your ignorance of the subject in everyone's face. So of course people are going to focus on it.

It's like if I started bragging about how much I know about the Bible and how I can easily show it to be myth, but then you find out I've never actually studied it or even read it. And then I start going on about how Paul freed Jesus and the slaves from Bethlehem, where Moses was born in a manger.

That's how your posts come across.

[SiNcE_1985]

No it doesn't...you've had several people try and explain it to you, but your lack of education, experience, and knowledge of biology prevents you from getting it. And your lack of humility prevents you from admitting to that fundamental ignorance.

Several people?

Oh, if several people told me that 2+2=18, I guess I'm supposed to just ride the waves with them.

So, let me get this straight, if I get several Christian apologists to explain to you how likely it is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead and this proved who he claimed to be...

If I do that, you'll jump right on the Christian bandwagon, huh?

Stop it.

The bottom line is, like I said, without God, evolution is false based on the natural impossibility of abiogenesis.

I said it, meant it, stand by it, and ain't moving from it.

Yes! You come in here making all sorts of boastful claims about biology, yet you have zero education, experience, or knowledge in/of it. And on top of that you say ridiculous things like what I quoted above, which only shoves your ignorance of the subject in everyone's face. So of course people are going to focus on it.

Your knowledge and extensive education on the subject won't get you a reptile-bird transformation in nature.

So, as I said prior...simply put, your educational background is irrelevant to the claims you are making.

It's not helping you...so calling out my "lack of education", while you with your "education" can't even get those results.

Quite frankly, it is laughable.

Not to mention the fact that those guys that I mention has those credentials, and they STILL don't buy in to the nonsense.

So, what will you tell them? You cant pull that card on them.

Obviously, it ain't about the education..it is about the interpretation of the observations.

It's like if I started bragging about how much I know about the Bible and how I can easily show it to be myth, but then you find out I've never actually studied it or even read it. And then I start going on about how Paul freed Jesus and the slaves from Bethlehem, where Moses was born in a manger.

That's how your posts come across.

So, tell me, what did I say that was inaccurate.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

That is you guy's go to move when you've got nothing to say.

[Jose Fly]

The bottom line is, like I said, without God, evolution is false based on the natural impossibility of abiogenesis.

I said it, meant it, stand by it, and ain't moving from it.

So if God created the first self-replicating organisms on earth and evolution proceeded from there, is that ok?

Your knowledge and extensive education on the subject won't get you a reptile-bird transformation in nature.

So, as I said prior...simply put, your educational background is irrelevant to the claims you are making.

The problem here is you're so ignorant in this subject you don't realize how ridiculous your demand is to observe a reptile giving birth to a bird. That's not how evolution works, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know the first thing about biology.

Quite frankly, it is laughable.

Yes it is laughable watching someone who knows next to nothing about a subject try and boast about it and debate it.

Not to mention the fact that those guys that I mention has those credentials, and they STILL don't buy in to the nonsense.

So, what will you tell them? You cant pull that card on them.

Obviously, it ain't about the education..it is about the interpretation of the observations.

You can find "credentialed" people who believe just about anything. I've seen PhDs who believe in a flat-earth, geocentric universe.

But if you find 5 or so people with credentials so compelling, why don't you find the hundreds of thousands of earth and life scientists' conclusions even more compelling? If it's a matter of credentials, it's not even close.

Not only that, can you name a single thing creationism has contributed to our scientific knowledge in the last 100 years? Meanwhile, our understanding of evolutionary common ancestry has led to all sorts of things, such as the field of comparative genomics, or methods of figuring out genetic function.

So in reality creationism is no different in science than flat-earthism....100% irrelevant.

So, tell me, what did I say that was inaccurate.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

I already showed you.

That the "whole ToE, unravels immediately once abiogenesis is considered" and your odd view that evolution is reptiles giving birth to birds.

[SiNcE_1985]

So if God created the first self-replicating organisms on earth and evolution proceeded from there, is that ok?

Sure, but did he? But even if he did, I still only seen evidence for evolution on the micro scale.

The problem here is you're so ignorant in this subject you don't realize how ridiculous your demand is to observe a reptile giving birth to a bird. That's not how evolution works, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know the first thing about biology.

Um, no..reading comprehension.

I'm saying that a reptile did not evolve into a bird...neither via a fast, immediate process (reptile giving birth to bird).....nor a slow, gradual process (watching transformers transform in 10x slow speed).

Both scenarios are equally ridiculous....neither scenario have ever been observed.

It did not happen.

Q
Yes it is laughable watching someone who knows next to nothing about a subject try and boast about it and debate it.

Yeah, ok.

You can find "credentialed" people who believe just about anything. I've seen PhDs who believe in a flat-earth, geocentric universe.

Then you agree that ridiculous claims are going on all across the board, regardless of education levels.

But if you find 5 or so people with credentials so compelling, why don't you find the hundreds of thousands of earth and life scientists' conclusions even more compelling? If it's a matter of credentials, it's not even close.

I simply go where the evidence takes me. If 5 people are on the side of where I think the evidence points, while the rest of the world is on the other side, then I'm still going with the 5.

Not only that, can you name a single thing creationism has contributed to our scientific knowledge in the last 100 years? Meanwhile, our understanding of evolutionary common ancestry has led to all sorts of things, such as the field of comparative genomics, or methods of figuring out genetic function.

The case for specified complexity (Behe), and Stephen Meyers work on Signature in the Cell, has contributed a lot to scientific knowledge..in my opinion.

So in reality creationism is no different in science than flat-earthism....100% irrelevant.

Opinions.

I already showed you.

That the "whole ToE, unravels immediately once abiogenesis is considered"

Um, I need specifics, because I gave specifics.

I didn't just make the statement, I gave reasons why the statement is true.

Can you respond to those reasons, or am I going to get the usual "Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" automated response.

and your odd view that evolution is reptiles giving birth to birds.

See above.