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]

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

And your uninformed skepticism isn't an effective rebuttal to the volume of data and myriad well-designed experiments that confirm our evolutionary history.

Do you have anything other than pithy one-liners? I already have all the Chick tracts I want.

[marke]

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?

Genesis 1

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[marke]

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

And your uninformed skepticism isn't an effective rebuttal to the volume of data and myriad well-designed experiments that confirm our evolutionary history.

Do you have anything other than pithy one-liners? I already have all the Chick tracts I want.

Multiplying volumes of data cannot magically transform interpretations of data into irrefutable scientific facts.

[Clownboat]

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

Genesis 1

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...

Let's grant for a moment that your religious promotional material is correct on this matter for the sake of debate.

Let who? Yup, the earth.
You slay your own reasoning. Thank you for doing my work for me.

Question for you. In regards to the nylon eating bacteria (nylon is man made and doesn't exist in nature). Do you believe that your preferred God created this bacteria, or that the earth brought it forth? Did all 400,000 species of beetle evolve from a single male and female that was on a boat just some thousands of years ago, or were the 399,999 created by your preferred way after the fact?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Be well.

[Clownboat]

Multiplying volumes of data cannot magically transform interpretations of data into irrefutable scientific facts.

No one has argued that multiplying volumes of data can magically transform interpretations of data into irrefutable scientific facts.
You debate ghosts with strawman arguments.

Something about it being better to remain silent comes to mind...

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Could, couldn't.

Just as long as at the end of the day, it is understood that; I Don't Care.

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 see that, and I counter it by saying your lack of desire to become a Christian requires you to find the theory of evolution reasonable, no matter how unreasonable the theory actually is.

I chose to avoid studying evolution for a long time myself, but it is interesting as to how explains what we see so well.

When evolution is the only game in town after you discount God, then you have no choice but to see it.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

Um, that may be true for some religions beliefs, but not mines.

You were referring to me, and my Christian beliefs.

The statement you made is not true as it relates to me, and my mines.

So, acknowledge that.

[SiNcE_1985]

My apologies. We have established though that you've not studied or read about anything in genetics or biology.

Again, a lifetime of studying and observing the results of animal reproduction, allows me to draw one conclusion...

No reptile-to-bird transformations in nature.

Not sudden, not gradual.

That's true, since "intelligent design" is just another way to say "God did it".

It is, isn't it.

Kinda like, when you say "God didn't do it", is just another way to say "abiogenesis did it".

The same thing, on the flipside, right?

Since gods can do anything, anyone can just say "God did it" no matter what is discovered or proposed.

Sure, just like naturalists have this idea of "given enough time, anything can happen".

I understand that. The problem is, whenever I ask you what from your sources you find so compelling you won't say.

Because, Im satisfied with the way I handle myself in these discussions, without appealing directly to them.

So you're not arguing against science, abiogenesis, or evolution? Then what was all that you posted about knowing biology more than biologists stuff? What was your goal there?

Hmm, resorting back to putting words on my fingertips, are you?

I never said I know more about biology than biologists.

To be honest I don't think that's true at all.

Opinions.

You seem to be someone who has a basic high school education in biology and that's it. So I have no idea what you've done that makes you think you "know enough" about biology.

Opinions.

It looks like we're just about done with the charade that you are some sort of expert in biology, and that you're here to debate science. Good!

Ok, This has to be the fourth time you accused me of something that I never said, implied, hinted, or insinuated.

I'm gonna start a rally as to how many times you make these false accusations.

We are at 4 now.

I've been looking for written material from Hovind for us to discuss but it looks like he doesn't really write much of anything and instead prefers videos. So is there a video of his that's among your favorites?

Sure, I could tell you..but I have no interest in debating or discussing his videos.

[Jose Fly]

Again, a lifetime of studying and observing the results of animal reproduction, allows me to draw one conclusion...

No reptile-to-bird transformations in nature.

Not sudden, not gradual.

But we've already agreed that you don't have to observe an event before we can say it happened, which contradicts the above (you arguing that since you haven't seen reptile-bird transformation, it never happened).

Try and keep that in mind.

Kinda like, when you say "God didn't do it", is just another way to say "abiogenesis did it".

The same thing, on the flipside, right?

Not necessarily. There are other options besides chemical abiogenesis and creation by a God.

Sure, just like naturalists have this idea of "given enough time, anything can happen".

I've never seen that in any scientific context, which was my point ("God did it" is not a valid explanation in science).

Because, Im satisfied with the way I handle myself in these discussions, without appealing directly to them.

So you don't want to discuss the material from creationists that you find persuasive.

I never said I know more about biology than biologists.

Yeah you did.

Post #247: When I asked if you think biologists are bad at their jobs and that you know biology better than they do, you replied "Sure, let's go with that".

Sure, I could tell you..but I have no interest in debating or discussing his videos.

So you're not here to debate/discuss science or any creationist material you think is compelling.

What exactly are you doing in this thread then, since it's specifically about the science of evolutionary biology?

[marke]

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

Genesis 1

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature...

Let's grant for a moment that your religious promotional material is correct on this matter for the sake of debate.


Question for you. In regards to the nylon eating bacteria (nylon is man made and doesn't exist in nature). Do you believe that your preferred God created this bacteria, or that the earth brought it forth? Did all 400,000 species of beetle evolve from a single male and female that was on a boat just some thousands of years ago, or were the 399,999 created by your preferred way after the fact?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Be well.

I assume bacteria is alive and not dead or inert. If so, then it's life originated with God, not some accidental unintelligent miracle of nature.