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]

Again, you don't know that because you don't know anything about paleontology. You've never studied a fossil, read a paleontology paper or journal, taken a class in paleontology, or anything of the sort.

All you have to go on is what a handful of creationists have told you, but because you don't know the first thing about the science you have no way of telling if their claims are true.

Saying the same stuff, over and over again.

All you did was substitute phylogenetics with paleontology and fossils.

We covered this, remember? If God created the first life forms on earth, evolution could still occur. Try and remember.

Yeah, and if you try and remember, I already agreed with what.

We covered this too, remember? We agreed that you don't need to directly observed an event before you can conclude that it took place. Try and remember!

Me: We don't directly observe evolution.

You: We don't need to directly observe an event before we can conclude that it took place.

Me: We don't indirectly observe evolution, either.

You: ...........

Are you just going in circles because you've exhausted all of your talking points and have nothing left? It kinda looks that way.

You call it taking in circles, I call it reinforcing facts.

[SiNcE_1985]

Dr. Wise does not believe evolution happened. But he is honest enough to admit that there is very good evidence to support evolutionary theory.

"I don't believe OJ committed those murders. But, I'm gonna be honest, there is very good evidence to support that he did".

I'm looking inside of the "sense" cabinet, and I don't see any sense in there.

The cabinet is empty.

[Jose Fly]

Saying the same stuff, over and over again.

Because you keep repeating the same mistake, i.e., making claims about subjects you don't know anything about.

Yeah, and if you try and remember, I already agreed with what.

Then you need to stop trying to say that until we figure out abiogenesis, we can't "have life evolving".

Me: We don't directly observe evolution.

You: We don't need to directly observe an event before we can conclude that it took place.

Me: We don't indirectly observe evolution, either.

You: ...........

We see populations evolving all the time. We see them evolve new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

[SiNcE_1985]

Because you keep repeating the same mistake, i.e., making claims about subjects you don't know anything about.

Here is what I know...

1. Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't.

2. It is impossible for life to arise naturally from nonliving material.

That's all I need to know.

Keep the biobabble on fantasy island stuff, out of textbooks, and classrooms.

Then you need to stop trying to say that until we figure out abiogenesis, we can't "have life evolving".

When your position becomes "God did it", then I'll stop saying it.

But as long as your position is "God didn't do it", then I'm tagging my "abiogenesis" partner in to the ring.

We see populations evolving all the time. We see them evolve new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

Um, no..see, that is the problem, right there.

This is a manipulation of words, and how children are being misled in classrooms.

When you say "we see populations evolve", you are including reptile-to-bird evolution...and you don't make the distinction between direct observation, and indirect observation.

So when you make the statement, one will naturally assume you mean direct observation, but that's not what you mean... because usually, direct observation is the common starting point in any discussion.

To demonstrate that you don't necessarily mean direct observation with the statement, all I have to do is say...

"But, we've never seen any reptile-to-bird type of observations in nature".

Then that's when you say "Correct, but we don't have to observe it directly in order for it to be true".

My response; then guess what, you don't see it!!!

These populations that we "see" evolving, are limited to family/genus/species.

There is no direct, nor indirect evidence of the family of Canidae, originating from a non-Canidae.

Sure, you can use your imagination to image whatever you like, but that ain't science.

That is religion. Faith. Fantasy.

[Jose Fly]

Here is what I know...

1. Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't.

2. It is impossible for life to arise naturally from nonliving material.

That's all I need to know.

Yet you keep going beyond those two things and try to present yourself as some sort of expert/authority in subjects you know nothing about, as we see below.

Keep the biobabble on fantasy island stuff, out of textbooks, and classrooms.

FYI, the people who write science textbooks and develop science curricula don't care one single bit what you think or say. They don't even know you exist!

When your position becomes "God did it", then I'll stop saying it.

But as long as your position is "God didn't do it", then I'm tagging my "abiogenesis" partner in to the ring.

You either missed or dodged the point. Again, just because we don't know how the first life forms on earth came to be doesn't mean subsequent life couldn't have evolved.

Um, no..see, that is the problem, right there.

This is a manipulation of words, and how children are being misled in classrooms.

When you say "we see populations evolve", you are including reptile-to-bird evolution...and you don't make the distinction between direct observation, and indirect observation.

So when you make the statement, one will naturally assume you mean direct observation, but that's not what you mean... because usually, direct observation is the common starting point in any discussion.

To demonstrate that you don't necessarily mean direct observation with the statement, all I have to do is say...

"But, we've never seen any reptile-to-bird type of observations in nature".

Then that's when you say "Correct, but we don't have to observe it directly in order for it to be true".

My response; then guess what, you don't see it!!!

These populations that we "see" evolving, are limited to family/genus/species.

There is no direct, nor indirect evidence of the family of Canidae, originating from a non-Canidae.

Sure, you can use your imagination to image whatever you like, but that ain't science.

That is religion. Faith. Fantasy.

Here you go again, trying to speak as an expert in a subject you not only know nothing about, but go out of your way to maintain that ignorance. I tried to show you some papers and info and you refused to even look at them.

So in that context, nothing you say about evolution or biology carries any weight at all. Do you understand that? Or do you actually think we're all going to go with your baseless say-so over the conclusions of actual scientists, even though you've admitted you know nothing about the subject?

C'mon dude, get over yourself.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yet you keep going beyond those two things and try to present yourself as some sort of expert/authority in subjects you know nothing about, as we see below.

None of those two things that I mentioned, are false..so kill that noise.

FYI, the people who write science textbooks and develop science curricula don't care one single bit what you think or say. They don't even know you exist!

I ain't losing no sleep over it.

You either missed or dodged the point. Again, just because we don't know how the first life forms on earth came to be doesn't mean subsequent life couldn't have evolved.

It is you who missed the point.

Here you go again, trying to speak as an expert in a subject you not only know nothing about, but go out of your way to maintain that ignorance. I tried to show you some papers and info and you refused to even look at them.

I explained why.

I can show you papers that explains evidences of Jesus' Resurrection.

Will you believe based on these papers?

No?

Well then, now take that same concept and apply it to your papers.

I ain't buying it.

So in that context, nothing you say about evolution or biology carries any weight at all. Do you understand that? Or do you actually think we're all going to go with your baseless say-so over the conclusions of actual scientists, even though you've admitted you know nothing about the subject?

C'mon dude, get over yourself.

I said what I said.

[The Barbarian]

Dr. Wise does not believe evolution happened. But he is honest enough to admit that there is very good evidence to support evolutionary theory.

"I don't believe OJ committed those murders. But, I'm gonna be honest, there is very good evidence to support that he did".

I'm looking inside of the "sense" cabinet, and I don't see any sense in there.

The cabinet is empty.

In science, there is always a very small possibility that the evidence is misleading. Over time, it becomes less and less likely, if more and more of the prediction of a theory are confirmed. Humans have always used inductive reasoning, because most of the time, we don't actually have logical certainty. If something goes missing from your house after a certain person had been there, it would be very foolish to accuse that person of theft. It it happened dozens of times, you'd start to realize there was a connection. Science is like that.

The Phlogiston Theory was like that. There was a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that phlogiston was a substance that left things that burned.
https://creation.com/phlogiston

But it was wrong, and subsequent evidence did not support the theory. And it was abandoned. Dr. Wise (and some other knowledgeable creationists) anticipate that somehow common descent will be refuted. They accept evolution as such, even speciation, because it's directly observed. But common descent, in spite of (as Dr. Wise admits) a huge body of evidence supporting it, might still be refuted. It's not a foolish idea.

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #377]

That's actually a good response to my smart alecky critique.

[Jose Fly]

None of those two things that I mentioned, are false..so kill that noise.

Are you going back on what we previously agreed to (that no matter how the first life forms arose evolution can still occur)?

I explained why.

I can show you papers that explains evidences of Jesus' Resurrection.

Will you believe based on these papers?

No?

Well then, now take that same concept and apply it to your papers.

I ain't buying it.

Here's the difference though.....we don't see people coming back to life after being dead for 3 days, ever. No one in Christianity argues that when Jesus did it was a natural, scientifically testable event.

OTOH, we've seen evolution produce new species many times, in all sorts of taxa, both in the wild and in the lab. We know it occurs by natural means and is scientifically testable. So the evolution of new species is a directly observed, scientifically tested fact.

Big difference between the two.

Now before you say "that's not a reptile giving birth to a bird", think about how many times people have tried to explain to you that that's not how evolution works. Reptile-bird evolution, like all other evolutionary transitions, took place via a series of speciation events. not via mothers giving birth to offspring from completely different taxonomic families.

That's why so many different people keep trying to correct you, tell you you're ignorant in evolution, and compare it to other ridiculous arguments (as I did by likening it to flat-earthers thinking Australians should be upside down).

Do you understand? No scientist thinks reptile-bird evolution took place the goofy way you depict it. None.

Now we get to see if that sinks in with you.

[The Barbarian]

Because you keep repeating the same mistake, i.e., making claims about subjects you don't know anything about.

Here is what I know...

1. Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't.

Even many creationists know better:

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the churchthe belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Answers in Genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... kpIkLanRkS

2. It is impossible for life to arise naturally from nonliving material.

God says that it did.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

That's all I need to know. Why not just accept His word on it?

Um, no..see, that is the problem, right there.

This is a manipulation of words, and how children are being misled in classrooms.

When you say "we see populations evolve", you are including reptile-to-bird evolution...

No. When we say "we directly observe erosion flattening out land", we aren't saying that anyone has directly observed mountains eroding into hills. But any reasonable person would comprehend that such erosion does indeed eventually wear down high mountains.

and you don't make the distinction between direct observation, and indirect observation.

Observation is the fact that we see evolution of new species. Evolution is an observed fact. Common descent is a prediction of evolutionary theory. And after a huge amount of new evidence confirmed the prediction, common descent is a valid scientific theory.

So when you make the statement, one will naturally assume you mean direct observation, but that's not what you mean... because usually, direct observation is the common starting point in any discussion.

It was that huge body of facts that made evolution so certain that no reasonable person familiar with the evidence would deny it.

"But, we've never seen any reptile-to-bird type of observations in nature".

But we have. There's a huge number of transitional fossils showing the transition. There's anatomical evidence showing just that evolution. Can you name even one feature of birds that is not found in some other dinosaurs?

Then that's when you say "Correct, but we don't have to observe it directly in order for it to be true".

Yes, and the notion that we can't be sure of anything we didn't directly observe, is routinely debunked by forensics, fire investigation, and a great number of other sciences.

My response; then guess what, you don't see it!!!

Fortunately, evidence can show us the truth of what we haven't directly observed.

These populations that we "see" evolving, are limited to family/genus/species.

As we have only directly observed low hills eroding away. No one with any sense would then declare that mountains can't erode.

There is no direct, nor indirect evidence of the family of Canidae, originating from a non-Canidae.

You've been badly misled about that. Gustafsonia cognita is definitely not a canid, but has many adaptations of canids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafsonia