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]

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.

I also said that we have no indirect evidence for evolution, either.

Try and keep that in mind.

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

It's all under the same umbrella of naturalism, though.

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

"Given enough time, reptile-to-bird stuff occurs in nature".

You've never seen or heard those insinuated claims in scientific contexts?

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

We are discussing the material.

Everything I've argued, is what I've learned from my sources.

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".

Ever heard of sarcasm?

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

I'm here to debate the subject, in general.

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

Last I checked, we were having discussion about the science of evolutionary biology.

Maybe you call it something else.

[Jose Fly]

I also said that we have no indirect evidence for evolution, either.

But you don't know that since you've never looked. The only basis you've cited is that you believe what a handful of creationists have told you.

It's all under the same umbrella of naturalism, though.

That's true of most things. Your car breaks down, you assume natural causes. You see a shooting star, you assume it's a natural event.

"Given enough time, reptile-to-bird stuff occurs in nature".

You've never seen or heard those insinuated claims in scientific contexts?

Nope, never. Have you? If so, where specifically? (I'm very curious to see where you heard it, given your lack of academic or professional experience)

We are discussing the material.

Everything I've argued, is what I've learned from my sources.

Um, no we're not. I've tried to discuss biology and genetics with you and you refused. Barbarian tried to go over fossils with you and you blew it all off.

If you actually want to discuss any of that, then stop messing around and let's do it.

Ever heard of sarcasm?

FYI for future reference, you should indicate sarcasm with either "/s" at the end, an emoji, or some other means.

But I'm glad we agree that you don't know biology more than biologists or anything of the sort.

I'm here to debate the subject, in general.

It's not coming across that way. This thread is specifically about phylogenies yet when I posted a paper about genetic phylogenies you said you'd never read anything like it.

Last I checked, we were having discussion about the science of evolutionary biology.

I've tried several times to discuss the science with you and you've balked every time. So if you want to try again, let's go.

Since this thread is specifically about phylogenetics, here is an example: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909377106

Discuss.

[SiNcE_1985]

I also said that we have no indirect evidence for evolution, either.

But you don't know that since you've never looked. The only basis you've cited is that you believe what a handful of creationists have told you.

And I brought up the fact that no comparative genetics or anything at the molecular level (which is, the indirect evidence) cannot exclusively rule out intelligent design.

I would only have to "look", if I didn't believe that the genetics show similar patterns (or whatever you want to call it).

If that was the case, then you could say "Yes they do, here, take a look".

But since I am granting you that, I don't have to look.

The contention lies on the interpretation of what similar genetics means.

You are going one way with it, and I'm going another.

That's true of most things. Your car breaks down, you assume natural causes. You see a shooting star, you assume it's a natural event.

Yeah, of most things. I agree.

Nope, never. Have you? If so, where specifically? (I'm very curious to see where you heard it, given your lack of academic or professional experience)

Ok, so let's allow this to play itself out.

Tell me, why haven't we observed any kind of reptile-to-bird transformations in nature.

Transformations of the same magnitude...why haven't we?

I'm gonna wait with anticipation for you to provide an answer that isn't a variation of "because, not enough time has elapsed".

Um, no we're not. I've tried to discuss biology and genetics with you and you refused.

Oh, I get it.

You are trying so hard to go into your bag of "bio-babble" tricks, and I'm making it difficult for you to do so.

The reason it is difficult, is because nothing in genetics can mean "X is this, therefore, intelligent design is false".

As long as that is the case, then your bio-babble tricks are deemed useless.

Barbarian tried to go over fossils with you and you blew it all off.

Barbarian? Who is that? Oh, you mean that one poster who stepped up and got shut down, and hasn't been seen for days?

Whatever happened to the guy?

If you actually want to discuss any of that, then stop messing around and let's do it.

The floor is yours, sir.

FYI for future reference, you should indicate sarcasm with either "/s" at the end, an emoji, or some other means.

Wow..

But I'm glad we agree that you don't know biology more than biologists or anything of the sort.

I know enough.

It's not coming across that way. This thread is specifically about phylogenies yet when I posted a paper about genetic phylogenies you said you'd never read anything like it.

I didn't. But since my "common designer" theory applies to anything genetically related, reading specific bio-babble doesn't undermine this.

I've tried several times to discuss the science with you and you've balked every time. So if you want to try again, let's go.

Bust a move.

Since this thread is specifically about phylogenetics, here is an example: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909377106

Discuss.

Common designer.

[Difflugia]

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

"Irrefutable" is doing all of your heavy lifting here. You're just retreating behind the final bulwark of all creationist apologetics, the equivocation of not impossible with probable. It's not impossible that Jesus created everything to look exactly as if evolution had happened, but you've backed yourself all the way against the not impossible wall. You and the rest of the creationists are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Santa Claus and leprechauns.

You're right that multiplying volumes of data can't make it impossible that Santa Claus, leprechauns, or creators exist. Nobody that can do math takes them seriously, though, because there's also no amount of not impossible that can be multiplied into probable.

[Difflugia]

I didn't. But since my "common designer" theory applies to anything genetically related,

It's been explained to you why it doesn't. Your response was to merely deny the explanation for an unrelated reason, a non sequitur.

reading specific bio-babble doesn't undermine this.

If you'd actually read it, you'd see that it does. As it is, your position is that not reading bio-babble doesn't undermine this. You should probably put your fingers in your ears, too, just to make sure.

[Jose Fly]

I also said that we have no indirect evidence for evolution, either.

But you don't know that since you've never looked. The only basis you've cited is that you believe what a handful of creationists have told you.

And I brought up the fact that no comparative genetics or anything at the molecular level (which is, the indirect evidence) cannot exclusively rule out intelligent design.

I would only have to "look", if I didn't believe that the genetics show similar patterns (or whatever you want to call it).

If that was the case, then you could say "Yes they do, here, take a look".

But since I am granting you that, I don't have to look.

The contention lies on the interpretation of what similar genetics means.

You are going one way with it, and I'm going another.

That's true of most things. Your car breaks down, you assume natural causes. You see a shooting star, you assume it's a natural event.

Yeah, of most things. I agree.

Nope, never. Have you? If so, where specifically? (I'm very curious to see where you heard it, given your lack of academic or professional experience)

Ok, so let's allow this to play itself out.

Tell me, why haven't we observed any kind of reptile-to-bird transformations in nature.

Transformations of the same magnitude...why haven't we?

I'm gonna wait with anticipation for you to provide an answer that isn't a variation of "because, not enough time has elapsed".

Um, no we're not. I've tried to discuss biology and genetics with you and you refused.

Oh, I get it.

You are trying so hard to go into your bag of "bio-babble" tricks, and I'm making it difficult for you to do so.

The reason it is difficult, is because nothing in genetics can mean "X is this, therefore, intelligent design is false".

As long as that is the case, then your bio-babble tricks are deemed useless.

Barbarian tried to go over fossils with you and you blew it all off.

Barbarian? Who is that? Oh, you mean that one poster who stepped up and got shut down, and hasn't been seen for days?

Whatever happened to the guy?

If you actually want to discuss any of that, then stop messing around and let's do it.

The floor is yours, sir.

FYI for future reference, you should indicate sarcasm with either "/s" at the end, an emoji, or some other means.

Wow..

But I'm glad we agree that you don't know biology more than biologists or anything of the sort.

I know enough.

It's not coming across that way. This thread is specifically about phylogenies yet when I posted a paper about genetic phylogenies you said you'd never read anything like it.

I didn't. But since my "common designer" theory applies to anything genetically related, reading specific bio-babble doesn't undermine this.

I've tried several times to discuss the science with you and you've balked every time. So if you want to try again, let's go.

Bust a move.

Since this thread is specifically about phylogenetics, here is an example: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909377106

Discuss.

Common designer.

So the entirety of your effort to discuss science and specifically the science of phylogenetics in this thread is to assert "God did it" without even bothering to look at what "it" is (actual genetics data).

Is that it? Do you have anything else to say about phylogenetics other than "God did it"?

[SiNcE_1985]

I didn't. But since my "common designer" theory applies to anything genetically related,

It's been explained to you why it doesn't.

I reject the explanation, apparently.

Just like you reject "Jesus is the Messiah" explanations, despite it being explained to you why he is.

Your response was to merely deny the explanation for an unrelated reason, a non sequitur.

I reject the explanation because I find common designer more plausible.

If you'd actually read it, you'd see that it does. As it is, your position is that not reading bio-babble doesn't undermine this. You should probably put your fingers in your ears, too, just to make sure.

Um, no. As you were told before, the explanatory power is lacking...and I explained why.

I simply don't find the evidence for your religion convincing.

Plain and simple.

[SiNcE_1985]

So the entirety of your effort to discuss science and specifically the science of phylogenetics in this thread is to assert "God did it" without even bothering to look at what "it" is (actual genetics data).

When you can use phylogenetics as proof of God did not do it, then talk to me.

Because if God didn't create the diversity of living organisms, he also didn't create life, or the universe.

So, it would be a snow ball effect.

But because I have indisputable, concrete, 100%, fireproof evidence that God did create the universe and life, then there is no way phylogenetics can be used as proof of naturalism.

Is that it? Do you have anything else to say about phylogenetics other than "God did it"?

No.

[marke]

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

"Irrefutable" is doing all of your heavy lifting here. You're just retreating behind the final bulwark of all creationist apologetics, the equivocation of not impossible with probable. It's not impossible that Jesus created everything to look exactly as if evolution had happened, but you've backed yourself all the way against the not impossible wall. You and the rest of the creationists are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Santa Claus and leprechauns.

You're right that multiplying volumes of data can't make it impossible that Santa Claus, leprechauns, or creators exist. Nobody that can do math takes them seriously, though, because there's also no amount of not impossible that can be multiplied into probable.

Unbelievers cannot disprove the Bible nor can they prove their alternate godless origins theories. Many determined God-rejecters admit their willingness to believe the impossibility of secular theories rather than believe the Bible.

[Attributing the origin of life to spontaneous generation.] However improbable we regard this event, it will almost certainly happen at least once.... The time... is of the order of two billion years.... Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
George Wald

George Wald
"Innovation and Biology"
In Scientific American:199, 9/1958, p100.
"I will not believe that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

George Wald was an American scientist and activist who studied pigments in the retina. He won a share of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Haldan Keffer Hartline and Ragnar Granit. Wikipedia
Born: November 18, 1906, New York, NY ...

[Clownboat]

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.

What I said above is accurate and true. What you said is not though. I don't have a desire to not become a Christian anymore than you would have a desire to not believe in Santa Claus. Why? Because I don't currently find it credible, like you wouldn't about Santa being real. Therefore, for me to claim that you have a desire to not believe in Santa Claus would be as silly as you claiming I desire things about something I also currently don't find to be a credible explanation.

To try to clarify further. Do you actually have a desire to not believe that the earth is flat or do you just not find such an explanation to be credible, rendering any 'desire' claims moot?

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

For the umpteenth time informing you, I'm ok with the idea that a God could have used evolution to create the life we see both now and in the fossil record, therefore I am not discounting the gods. However, until you provide some reasoning to believe such a thing, it will be discounted like Santa. (for not being a credible explanation).

In this thread there has been much information presented to show that evolution is credible as an explanation for what we see. You have not done this for any god concept as of yet.