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.

[Jose Fly]

Genetic similarities do not force scientific acceptance of evolutionist narratives.

How do you know? Are you a geneticist?

[Clownboat]

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.

I have now for the sake of debate granted you this argument twice. I must note that granting your argument has gotten us nowhere (twice). I'm forced to believe for now at least that it is your argument that suffers, because even when granted, it is meaningless and gets us nowhere.

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.

Readers, do you actually believe that this person knows that abiogenesis is false? Considering all the reasons given of course.

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.

I asked for you to provide a better mechanism if you disagree that the ToE is the best explanation. You failed to do so which tells us that you agree that ToE is the best explanation. Why are you even in this thread then I must wonder?

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

Correct, now for the 3rd time, I grant you that your favorite god created life on this planet. Now please explain the mechanism that best explains the animals that we see now compared to those in the fossil record.

Your whole ToE, unravels immediately once abiogenesis is considered.

Nope, your preferred god created life (being granted in hopes to foster debate). Evolution is still the best mechanism for what we see until you provide a better one.

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.

You are just plain wrong. Again, your favorite god concept could have created life and evolution is not affected.

I am embarrassed on your behalf for not understanding that an all powerful God could create life and then create a mechanism that affects what happens after.

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

The readers will note that it is you that dodges questions asked of you and that it is I that addresses questions posed to me.

You attack my knowledge of the subject.

Your lack of knowledge about evolution and abiogenesis hardly needs to be pointed out, much less attacked as it is glaringly obvious. You have been fairly honest about this IMO.

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

It is your inability to offer valid replies that is the problem. Evidence for this is all the times have I granted for the sake of debate that you pretend that we know that it was your god concept that first created life in hopes that by removing that obstacle would allow a discussion about evolution.

"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 disagree. Showing that your (generic 'your') debate opponent doesn't know what they are talking about is effective in debate.

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

You are the common denominator here I would point out.

<snipped some odd Mother Nature stuff>

<snipped more charges of fake modesty>

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

Readers, let it go on record that when I am willing to grant a specific god concept is what created first life so that we can then attempt to discuss evolution, that I am being closed-minded.

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.

Yes, it is your god belief that prevents your understanding of evolution and your unwillingness to learn about it. It seems that your eternal soul belief is what demands that you don't learn about evolution, but I admit that I could be wrong and something else currently unknown is stopping you.

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

You are begging to be ridiculed! Evolution doesn't create life, evolution is a mechanism that explains the changes to life that we witness.

I say this boldly, with emphatic confidence.

We know!

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

Due to 'cult thinking' this poster is force to place views upon me that are not accurate.

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.

I do not claim that there are no Gods. You need to get this through your head. I am not some enemy of your church that your church need to unite against to do battle. I am just a human that wonders if you have a valid point that might make me sharpen my own thinking. So far, you have offered nothing.

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.

You offer 5 words and one number. Please don't expect to be take seriously.

[Clownboat]

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.

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

Readers, how do you feel about Since_1985's logic and consistency?

Not so fast.

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

I would know that he could lift 225 lbs if he could lift 530 lbs.

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

Yup!

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

I pondered it and I'm still wondering why you dodged my questions.
(I kid of course, I know why you are unable to address what I ask and instead offer up dodges like this).

Is Behe infallible? Yes or no.

Yes.

Readers, ask yourself why my questions get dodged and when I answer this person questions, they take us nowhere...

[Clownboat]

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.

I'll pretend with you that you did address all this because it doesn't affect your lack of logic being used nor the noted inconsistencies that were being tested with the questions.

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.

Your favorite god concept created life (I'm trying my best to foster debate). Now what is the mechanism that stops evolutionary changes from adding up over time?

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 do not turn a blind eye to abiogenesis. I do not claim that is how life came about, but acknowledge it as one of many possibilities for how life may have begun. Your continued denial of my actual beliefs is in fact not respectful.

Justice...is coming.

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

It is what it is.

I agree that it is what it is and still note that your reasoning should be better than what terrorist offer us, but it sadly isn't.

[marke]

Genetic similarities do not force scientific acceptance of evolutionist narratives.

And that fantastically bright light in the sky doesn't force acceptance of the Sun as real, either, but here we are.

Favorable interpretations of data are not proofs that evolutionist assumptions are accurate.

[marke]

Genetic similarities do not force scientific acceptance of evolutionist narratives.

How do you know? Are you a geneticist?

Biased interpretations of data are not miraculously transformed into scientific proofs just because an evolutionist supporter has trained in secular schools to believe unproven evolutionist narratives are equivalent to scientific facts.

[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.

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.

I acknowledge that you failed to understand what I was talking about.
The religious beliefs that someone currently holds can demands that they don't learn about evolution because their salvations depends on them not knowing about it.

[Clownboat]

True believers in God (like myself) could care less, though.

Ok, go on and care even less about it.
(Perhaps you mean you couldn't care less? This is a common mistake many make.)

We are trying to get our names in the Lamb's book of Life, not in man-made scientific journals that don't mean a dang thang in this life, nor the next one.

Like I keep noting, your lack of learning about evolution is caused because of your desire to get your name in the Lamb's Book of Life and this requires you to not know about it. I chose to avoid studying evolution for a long time myself, but it is interesting as to how explains what we see so well.

[Clownboat]

Favorable interpretations of data are not proofs that evolutionist assumptions are accurate.

What mechanism do you propose that better explains all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record?

To note: We have identified 1.3 million existing species so far with more every day. Beetles alone have 400,000 species. Unless you are willing to propose some form of rapid evolution that would make a biologist blush, how do we get from 2 of each animal on a boat just some thousands of years ago to what is actually on earth?

It's like your suggesting that evolution doesn't happen, except for when it comes to some crazy super accelerated form of it.

[Jose Fly]

Biased interpretations of data are not miraculously transformed into scientific proofs just because an evolutionist supporter has trained in secular schools to believe unproven evolutionist narratives are equivalent to scientific facts.

What "biased interpretation" are you referring to? Be specific.