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]

I reject the explanation, apparently.

Yes. That's what I said. That doesn't excuse you, though.

Ohh, I get it.

You guys get to reject theistic claims, arguments, and evidences until the cows come home.

When it comes to rejecting theistic claims, rejection and skepticism is wanted, supported and encouraged.

But, when someone rejects scientific claims, ohh nooo. How could you?? Did you read the latest scientific journal?? Are you not willing to learn?? Didn't we just explain to you?

When it comes to someone rejecting scientific claims, rejection and skepticism is criticized, ridiculed, and a person's knowledge is questioned.

The double standard is wild.

Are you sure you're thinking of me? What "Jesus is the Messiah" explanations do I reject?

Ok, let's let it play out, since we have the "who, me??" thing going on.

John 3:16

"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH HIM SHALL NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE".

So, the scripture is saying here, that God offered his son (Jesus) as a sacrifice, to atone for your sins.

His son suffered, so that you wouldn't have to. This is an act of God's love for you, and to mankind.

So, with Jesus' death and resurrection, comes salvation, should you believe in him. That's how Jesus is our Messiah (Anointed One, Savior).

Now, I just explained it to you. Do you accept it? Will you become a Christian?

Yes or no?

I think you've got that backwards.

Sure you do.

That was because you didn't (and still don't?) know what "explanatory" means.

Yeah, and I challenged you to demonstrate how, based on the context that I used the word, will allow you to conclude that I don't know what the word means.

You then went on a hiatus from our dialogue after that challenge/post... pretty much have been on mute ever since.

Still waiting on it.

If you don't know what it is, you can't find it convincing.

I do know what it is.

It is..

Common designer.

[SiNcE_1985]

You have stated why many times now yourself.
Dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats.

Reptiles have in fact produced reptiles. As you have learned, birds are reptiles (Reptilia) and descended from a feathered theropod dinosaur (Reptilia). This Reptilia to Reptilia, or reptile to bird (still Reptilia) transformation has happened and pictures of some of the fossils were provided for you to observe.

We have observed what you claim we haven't.

Um, no.

You are arguing backwards.

But let me rephrase the question...why haven't we observed the actual live birth transformation..from no- feathered reptiles, to feathered reptiles, in real time (live birth).

The mother and father lacking the feathers, to the offspring possessing the feathers?

That is what I meant.

You just seem to want to see a crocodile give birth to a duck or some such thing, but as you have now learned with how languages evolve, that is not how it happens. Small changes over time in language lead to larger changes.

Also, keep this in mind. Old English didn't get invented out of whole cloth. It also came from small changes over time from a previous English language. Go back far enough in the language (to the theropod) and you would probably notice something spoken that seems nothing like Old English.

Check out the bold emphasis, which is mines.



When you cut through allllll the mumbo, what you are essentially saying is "given enough time, anything can happen".

Just as I said it would be. Thanks.

Notice Jose didn't respond to the challenge, because he knew I was right.

Wow.

When I was still a Christian, noting how languages changed over time helped me to understand how evolution actually works. Dogs do produce dogs just like how English produced English and yet we can barely read Old English. It's almost as if Old English is some other language altogether, but as we learned, it is not. The further back you go in language the more changes that have taken place, but at no time did someone wake up in the morning speaking a new language. That would be like a croc giving birth to a horse which is not what evolution claims.

Hope this helps!

Actually you did help, but not in the way you think.

What you are describing is language evolution on the micro scale.

Here is a challenge, demonstrate how the English language can evolve into Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, or Korean.

Over time.



Let's get some macro stuff going around here!!

[Jose Fly]

Notice Jose didn't respond to the challenge, because he knew I was right.

No. I, like everyone else here, recognized your "challenge" as being based in fundamental ignorance of the topic, akin to a flat-earther asking us if we've ever seen an upside down Australian.

Seriously dude, if you really want answers to questions like that why not go read a book? Or go here.... https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/

The only person to blame for your ignorance of this subject you seem to be so interested in is.....you.

[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.

What if there was a God that created life and then the mechanism of evolution? That would mean that evolution is in fact intelligent and not accidental. Why are you willing to rule out the idea that gods did this? What is your reason for assuming that all powerful beings could not create life and the a process where it changes?

Now back to my questions if you would be so kind as to provide your thoughts:
- 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?

God created life. Life did not originate by accident, ignorance, or some other as yet unknown entity. Life forms created by God do have the ability to adapt and change, but there is no possibility that humans evolved from animals.

[Difflugia]

Ohh, I get it.

You guys get to reject theistic claims, arguments, and evidences until the cows come home.

Unless some evidence comes home before the cows do.

When it comes to rejecting theistic claims, rejection and skepticism is wanted, supported and encouraged.

When it comes to anything, skepticism is wanted, supported, and encouraged. When no evidence is forthcoming, rejection is expected.

But, when someone rejects scientific claims, ohh nooo. How could you?? Did you read the latest scientific journal??

Well, did you?

Are you not willing to learn??

Are you?

Didn't we just explain to you?

Didn't we?

When it comes to someone rejecting scientific claims, rejection and skepticism is criticized, ridiculed, and a person's knowledge is questioned.

Skepticism is fine. It's rejection in the face of the evidence while expressing pride in one's own ignorance that's criticized and ridiculed.

The double standard is wild.

It's a single standard: accept things for which there's good evidence and reject those for which there's not. It just seems like a double-standard to you because it hit you coming and going.

Are you sure you're thinking of me? What "Jesus is the Messiah" explanations do I reject?

Ok, let's let it play out, since we have the "who, me??" thing going on.

So, the scripture is saying here...

Exactly. The Jesus characters in the Bible stories are the Messiah just like Harry Potter is the Boy that Lived and Abraham Lincoln is a vampire hunter.

Now, I just explained it to you. Do you accept it? Will you become a Christian? Yes or no?

Sure. And I'll become one of Peter Pan's Lost Boys, too.

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

I think you've got that backwards.

Sure you do.

What, you think you'd be working this hard to deny scientific reality if you weren't already a creationist?

That was because you didn't (and still don't?) know what "explanatory" means.

Yeah, and I challenged you to demonstrate how, based on the context that I used the word, will allow you to conclude that I don't know what the word means.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation. The molecular phylogenetic data are the evidence that demonstrate the validity of the explanation.

You then went on a hiatus from our dialogue after that challenge/post... pretty much have been on mute ever since.

Still waiting on it.

Well, there you go.

If you don't know what it is, you can't find it convincing.

I do know what it is.

It is..

Common designer.

The molecular data don't support a common designer that reuses common elements. In situations where organisms share genes with identical functions, those genes still show divergence that exactly matches that of other genes. Would your idea of a common designer design in a way that exactly matches what we expect from evolution? If not, what clues should we expect to find in the genomic data?

[SiNcE_1985]

Unless some evidence comes home before the cows do.

Likewise, with evolution.

When it comes to anything, skepticism is wanted, supported, and encouraged. When no evidence is forthcoming, rejection is expected.

Likewise, with evolution.

Well, did you?

Did you read the latest books that lay out the case for the the Resurrection?

Are you?

Are you willing to learn about how history supports the existence of Jesus and his Resurrection?

Didn't we?

No.

Skepticism is fine. It's rejection in the face of the evidence while expressing pride in one's own ignorance that's criticized and ridiculed.

I don't believe what you guys believe..and you can't make me.

It's a single standard: accept things for which there's good evidence and reject those for which there's not. It just seems like a double-standard to you because it hit you coming and going.

When you have good evidence, holla at me.

Until then; belief denied.

Exactly. The Jesus characters in the Bible stories are the Messiah just like Harry Potter is the Boy that Lived and Abraham Lincoln is a vampire hunter.

And evolution is like an X-rated version of Transformers (because evolution requires copulation).

Charles Darwin is like the Stan Lee of evolution.

Sure. And I'll become one of Peter Pan's Lost Boys, too.

Hey, boys will be boys, I guess.

It's 2025, and that kind of stuff has become more accepted, in recent years.

What, you think you'd be working this hard to deny scientific reality if you weren't already a creationist?

A belief in evolution wouldn't effect my Christianity...unlike a non-belief in your religion (evolution) would affect your atheism.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation. The molecular phylogenetic data are the evidence that demonstrate the validity of the explanation.

From the looks of things, I'm not the one who doesn't know what explanatory power means.

Well, there you go.

And still waiting.

The molecular data don't support a common designer that reuses common elements. In situations where organisms share genes with identical functions, those genes still show divergence that exactly matches that of other genes. Would your idea of a common designer design in a way that exactly matches what we expect from evolution? If not, what clues should we expect to find in the genomic data?

Let's put this one to bed, Diff.

Your theory presupposes life, PERIOD.

The life that your theory presupposes, ain't originating without a Cosmic Creator (CC).

So, since there is no story of "Life" without CC, then anything that comes as a result of this life, also comes as a result of CC (primary cause, secondary cause).

So, if you want to say that phylogenetics cannot be the product of CC, then you'd need to prove the theory of abiogenesis true, which we both know you cannot do.

It isnt until you do that, that you can even begin to talk about evolution, phylogenetics, or any other bio-babble concept you want to throw in there.

You don't have a viable theory, is what I am trying to say.

So, good night, drive home safely, and most importantly, remember this here..

The life that you save, just may be your own.

[SiNcE_1985]

No. I, like everyone else here, recognized your "challenge" as being based in fundamental ignorance of the topic, akin to a flat-earther asking us if we've ever seen an upside down Australian.

Sureeee.

Seriously dude, if you really want answers to questions like that why not go read a book? Or go here.... https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/

Why read a book when I have a genius biologist right here.

The only person to blame for your ignorance of this subject you seem to be so interested in is.....you.

I don't believe based on ignorance. I don't believe based on knowledge.

[SiNcE_1985]

This thread is about whether phylogenetics are evidence for evolution, not about whether they're "proof that God didn't do it".

Ok, and what was my answer? NO.

Are you saying you don't think phylogenies are evidence for evolution?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

[Clownboat]

You have stated why many times now yourself.
Dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats.

Reptiles have in fact produced reptiles. As you have learned, birds are reptiles (Reptilia) and descended from a feathered theropod dinosaur (Reptilia). This Reptilia to Reptilia, or reptile to bird (still Reptilia) transformation has happened and pictures of some of the fossils were provided for you to observe.

We have observed what you claim we haven't.

Um, no.

Um, yes.
The readers will note who is in complete denial and who is at least trying to explain and provide evidence.

But let me rephrase the question...why haven't we observed the actual live birth transformation..from no- feathered reptiles, to feathered reptiles, in real time (live birth).

Holy monkeys! As has been explained to you many times, for the same reason that no person woke up one morning speaking a new form of English. I trust that our readers are able to understand this and personally believe that your desire to have your name in a Lamb's Book of Life requires you to not understand.

The mother and father lacking the feathers, to the offspring possessing the feathers?

That is what I meant.

I know this is what you meant. You actually think that evolution works like this and your religious belief prevents you from gaining actual understanding. You are required not to understand. Therefore, I'm not here to convince you, but to show the strength of my argument compared to your own silly expectation about a theory you continue to show you know little about.

Consider it this way: I'll believe in Jesus again, when you can show me that Noah was born in a manger and that Moses rose from the grave after being dead for 3 days.
Your response should be: "That is not the claim".
Then imagine I continue to make it. Would you be embarrassed for me? I am for you...

You just seem to want to see a crocodile give birth to a duck or some such thing, but as you have now learned with how languages evolve, that is not how it happens. Small changes over time in language lead to larger changes.

Also, keep this in mind. Old English didn't get invented out of whole cloth. It also came from small changes over time from a previous English language. Go back far enough in the language (to the theropod) and you would probably notice something spoken that seems nothing like Old English.

Check out the bold emphasis, which is mines.



When you cut through allllll the mumbo, what you are essentially saying is "given enough time, anything can happen".

Readers, notice the lack of any actual argument or a showing of understanding. All we get is denial in the form of calling it 'mumbo', as if that renders points null.

Actually you did help, but not in the way you think.

What you are describing is language evolution on the micro scale.

I disagree because of the fact that you are unable to read Old English. What preceded Old English? Do you think you would have understood that language? What about the one that preceded that one? And on and on.

Here is a challenge, demonstrate how the English language can evolve into Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, or Korean.

What you request did not happen. Again, people do not wake up one morning speaking another language.
Ever heard of Latin? Any idea how many languages evolved from that one (some estimate some 70 extinct and about 20 still in existence)? Latin would be similar to being a common descendant for Spanish, Italian etc... Someone speaking Latin did not wake up speaking Spanish. What happened is that small changes in language within a population (Spain) over time is how we got Spanish from Latin. Populations in Italy, at the same time had there own small changes taking place. Over time, we now call their language Italian. Guess what happened near France?

Latin is the theropod in this explanation.

Let's get some macro stuff going around here!!

Explained. Old English cannot reproduce with New English. This is a macro change and the only way we know they are related is by following the evidence. If people thought like you, that new languages pop up out of thin air, they would be confused about language, like you are about evolution.

Thank you for allowing me to lay this out in a clear way for our readers.

[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.


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.

What if there was a God that created life and then the mechanism of evolution? That would mean that evolution is in fact intelligent and not accidental. Why are you willing to rule out the idea that gods did this? What is your reason for assuming that all powerful beings could not create life and the a process where it changes?

Now back to my questions if you would be so kind as to provide your thoughts:
- 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?

God created life. Life did not originate by accident, ignorance, or some other as yet unknown entity. Life forms created by God do have the ability to adapt and change, but there is no possibility that humans evolved from animals.

I find it disrespectful to quote someone's post they took time out of their day to create, but then not respond to the questions therein.

When you desire to make random, un-evidence claims, please don't pretend to be responding to an actual post like you did above. Such statements are meant for shouting at people from street corners while standing on a soap box IMO. Here we are to debate.

I do hope you got this off your chest though...
Much appreciated.