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]

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.

You say this, yet you've already agreed prior that a Christian's belief in evolution doesn't effect the Gospel.

So, what you are talking about here, I don't know.

[Jose Fly]

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

So if God created the first life forms on earth, that doesn't mean those organisms, and all subsequent organisms are absolutely unable to evolve, does it?

IOW, God could have created the first life and evolution could still occur, right?

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.

Where did you get the idea that something has to be observed before we can say it happened?

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

Of course.

I simply go where the evidence takes me.

How can that be with evolutionary biology since you have no education or experience in it, you don't read biology journals or attend biology conferences? What evidence have you looked at?

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.

Do you have any evidence of its impact and contribution?

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

See above. Even if God created the first organisms there's nothing preventing them and their descendants from subsequently evolving.

[SiNcE_1985]

So if God created the first life forms on earth, that doesn't mean those organisms, and all subsequent organisms are absolutely unable to evolve, does it?

God created life (based on the natural impossibility of abiogenesis), with the capabilities to change (evolve) at the micro level (based on observation).

Nothing I said here is false^.

Just simply going where the evidence takes me.

IOW, God could have created the first life and evolution could still occur, right?

Sure, God could have created unicorns with wings in another universe.

The question is, did he?

Where did you get the idea that something has to be observed before we can say it happened?

I'm saying there is no direct evidence for it, nor is it indirect evidence for it.

Both ends are covered.

It didn't occur on any level that your fanciful imagination can posit, besides the micro level...unless, of course, you posit God.

Of course.

Alright then. So your mentioning of my education level is irrelevant to the discussion.

How can that be with evolutionary biology since you have no education or experience in it, you don't read biology journals or attend biology conferences? What evidence have you looked at?

Bruh, I've addressed this already.

This is the fourth or fifth time you made this point, and I addressed it.

Not gonna keep repeating myself...respectfully.

Do you have any evidence of its impact and contribution?

In my opinion, those contributions demonstrates the limitations of science... forcing us to look beyond science and nature.

That is a positive impact and contribution.

Now, this may have ruffled some feathers, but it is what it is.

See above. Even if God created the first organisms there's nothing preventing them and their descendants from subsequently evolving.

If it happens in nature, we should be able to either directly observe it, or indirectly observe it..regardless of whether God is the explanation or not.

I maintain that we can do neither.

So, there are no positive reasons to believe that it occured.

[Jose Fly]

God created life (based on the natural impossibility of abiogenesis), with the capabilities to change (evolve) at the micro level (based on observation).

Nothing I said here is false^.

Sure, God could have created unicorns with wings in another universe.

The question is, did he?

Then we've established that even if abiogenesis is false and it was God who actually created the first life forms, that doesn't mean the ToE is automatically falsified.

So we can drop that.

I'm saying there is no direct evidence for it, nor is it indirect evidence for it.

Then we agree that an event doesn't have to be observed before we can conclude that it happened.

So we can drop that too.

Alright then. So your mentioning of my education level is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your level of knowledge of the subject is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

Since you keep making claims about what evidence does or doesn't exist and what it does or doesn't show, it's entirely relevant to ask you what specific evidence you've examined.

So what specific evidence have you looked at?

In my opinion, those contributions demonstrates the limitations of science... forcing us to look beyond science and nature.

That is a positive impact and contribution.

Do you have any evidence of this impact or is the above merely your personal opinion and nothing more?

[SiNcE_1985]

Then we've established that even if abiogenesis is false and it was God who actually created the first life forms, that doesn't mean the ToE is automatically falsified.

So we can drop that.

If God did it, then atheism is false.

You sure you wanna drop that?

Then we agree that an event doesn't have to be observed before we can conclude that it happened.

So we can drop that too.

I guess you missed the "we don't have indirect evidence for it, either" part.

Your level of knowledge of the subject is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

Since you keep making claims about what evidence does or doesn't exist and what it does or doesn't show, it's entirely relevant to ask you what specific evidence you've examined.

So what specific evidence have you looked at?

My guys have the evidence, though.

They've examined the specific evidence, and they ain't buying it.

I ain't buying it.

Do you have any evidence of this impact or is the above merely your personal opinion and nothing more?

I guess it is a personal opinion, just like it is your personal opinion that they didn't.

[Jose Fly]

If God did it, then atheism is false.

You sure you wanna drop that?

Makes no difference to me. I'm not an atheist.

I guess you missed the "we don't have indirect evidence for it, either" part.

And that brings us to a key question....where have you looked for evidence that allows you to say that?

My guys have the evidence, though.

They've examined the specific evidence, and they ain't buying it.

I ain't buying it.

So is it accurate to say that your position on this isn't a result of you looking over the science and evidence, but instead is because you find creationists' arguments to be persuasive?

I guess it is a personal opinion, just like it is your personal opinion that they didn't.

Except my opinion is based on a complete lack of examples of "specified complexity" being used in science, let alone having an impact on it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Makes no difference to me. I'm not an atheist.

Well, that's who my beef is against (along with naturalists/materialists).

If that's not you, then scadaddle.

And that brings us to a key question....where have you looked for evidence that allows you to say that?

I looked at what has been presented as evidence for it...which would be similarities in genetics, anatomy, fossils.

Those are the presented indirect evidences that they provide, since they are obviously failing on the direct observation lines.

But they are losing on both fronts.

So is it accurate to say that your position on this isn't a result of you looking over the science and evidence, but instead is because you find creationists' arguments to be persuasive?

Yes, exactly.

Plus, watching debates, primarily of Kent Hovind.

Man, let me tell you something...I watched Kent Hovind debate 3 evolutions at one time.

A 3 on 1 debate...and he single handedly (with God by his side), mopped the floor with those guys.

The evolutionists presented, and brought their best cases forward, and Kent responded to every single one of their points, destroying them...while at the same time making a positive case for Christian creationism.

Then I began binge watching his MANY other debates on evolution with other scientists, along with his MANY video seminars and lectures.

Of course, this lead to my discovery of other previously mentioned guys as well.

But when it comes to evolution, Kent is my guy.

Except my opinion is based on a complete lack of examples of "specified complexity" being used in science, let alone having an impact on it.

So, the human body isn't an example of specified complexity?

[Jose Fly]

Well, that's who my beef is against (along with naturalists/materialists).

Seems like you have a beef against biologists and pretty much all earth and life scientists.

I looked at what has been presented as evidence for it...which would be similarities in genetics, anatomy, fossils.

Such as? What specifically in genetics did you look at for example?

Those are the presented indirect evidences that they provide, since they are obviously failing on the direct observation lines.

We covered that. An event doesn't have to be directly observed before we can say it happened.

Yes, exactly.

Plus, watching debates, primarily of Kent Hovind.

Man, let me tell you something...I watched Kent Hovind debate 3 evolutions at one time.

A 3 on 1 debate...and he single handedly (with God by his side), mopped the floor with those guys.

The evolutionists presented, and brought their best cases forward, and Kent responded to every single one of their points, destroying them...while at the same time making a positive case for Christian creationism.

Then I began binge watching his MANY other debates on evolution with other scientists, along with his MANY video seminars and lectures.

Of course, this lead to my discovery of other previously mentioned guys as well.

But when it comes to evolution, Kent is my guy.

What's a really good argument from Kent that you like?

So, the human body isn't an example of specified complexity?

No because in biology there is no such thing as "specified complexity". It's just something a couple of creationists made up.

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, that's who my beef is against (along with naturalists/materialists).

Seems like you have a beef against biologists and pretty much all earth and life scientists.

Um, no. Not all biologists agree with it...there are those that agree with me (or, I with them).

Such as? What specifically in genetics did you look at for example?

All of it.

Pick one, any one...and my response will be "common designer".

We covered that. An event doesn't have to be directly observed before we can say it happened.

And we also covered your "you don't have to observe it directly" point.

I said, neither indirect....which means any indirect evidence or observation you present, doesn't prove evolution, either.

No safe havens...I'm allowing any wiggle room for you to tout any bio-babble.

Anything beyond microevolution, is fantasyland.

What's a really good argument from Kent that you like?

All of it, although I am a little on the fence with Kent when it comes to OE vs YE..as he is a strict YEC.

But besides that, I'm rocking with him 100.

No because in biology there is no such thing as "specified complexity". It's just something a couple of creationists made up.

Opinions.

[Jose Fly]

All of it.

Pick one, any one...and my response will be "common designer".

That's not an answer and makes me suspicious that when you said you've looked into genetics, you weren't being truthful. So before I reach that conclusion, let's try again....

You claimed you looked into genetics. What topic(s) within genetics did you look into? Did you focus more on molecular or population genetics? Did you look into comparative genomics at all?

All of it, although I am a little on the fence with Kent when it comes to OE vs YE..as he is a strict OEC.

But besides that, I'm rocking with him 100.

That's another non-answer. Remember all your bragging about how you know biology more than biologists? The more you dodge the more it looks like you weren't telling the truth.

So try again....what do you think is one of Kent's best arguments against evolution?

Opinions.

It's just a fact. There isn't a single published paper in any biology journals that uses "specified complexity" nor are there any biotech firms that use it or universities that teach it.