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]

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

It ain't happening without God.

So, it does matter.

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.

More people have claimed to see the risen Jesus than have seen any macro reptile-to-bird transformations.

OTOH, we've seen evolution produce new species many times, in all sorts of taxa, both in the wild and in the lab.

Before I respond to this, are you claiming this stuff was seen with directly?

I ask because I already know you're dying to pull the "you don't have to observe directly" stunt...while given the appearance that this is what you meant when you first said it.

We know it occurs by natural means and is scientifically testable. So the evolution of new species is a directly observed, scientifically tested fact.

Strawman. No one is denying speciation...and a reptile-to-bird change ain't speciation.

Big difference between the two.

Yeah, big difference.

Two totally different methodologies.

Either way, one fails, and one doesn't.

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.

You predicted I would say that^.

But you didn't predict i would say this..

"I said it didn't occur gradually, either."

Remember that one?

You guys continue to attack when I critique the idea of reptile giving birth to a bird...just so you can use the "but that's not what evolution says" spiel.

You guys look forward to using that line.

I said before, and I'll say again...a reptile did not evolve into a bird...no matter how many billions of years you think it takes for it to occur.

Time won't save the theory.

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.

I keep trying to correct you guys, Jesus is returning soon.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

Speciation is still within the same family...and no one is denying this.

Strawman.

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?

Evolution: All living things come from a genetically linked common ancestor, not God.

Christian theism: All living things come from God, who genetically linked all things.

Shame on you, for the continuous mixing of Satan's lie with God's truth.

Newsflash: they don't mix.

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.

Can you conduct a test and simulate those conditions, and get the same results?

You know, do actual science?

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.

More strawman.

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

The person who denies the validity of evolution ain't the unreasonable person, trust me.

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?

When you pop open the hood of your car, you'll find similar parts to the car of your neighbor next door, despite you guys having different make and models.

What does this mean? Common designer.

The designer can take similar parts and make a variety of different automobiles using the same parts.

But some will have sunroofs, some some won't. Some will have four doors, some two doors. Some will have more trunk space than others. Some will have navigation systems, some won't. Some seats can go back further than others.

But they will all have engines, transmissions, radiators, brake systems, A/C, etc.

This says nothing about evolution. This says everything about a common designer, who can take the same foundational blueprint for automobiles, yet give certain cars different features than others.

Doesn't have anything to do with any natural, blind, unguided process.

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.

Yeah, but we can directly observe animals producing their own kind.

I don't see any indirect evidence that is contrary to this.

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

That is a belief. Not a fact.

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

Well, if that was the subject of debate, then we'll need to dive into that as well.

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

If it's not a Canid, end of discussion.

[Jose Fly]

It ain't happening without God.

So, it does matter.

That's not the point. Are you really having this much trouble keeping up? No matter how the first life forms on earth came to be, be it by chemical means, an act of a god, seeding by aliens, or anything else, there is nothing keeping those life forms and all their descendants from evolving.

Are you capable of grasping and retaining that?

More people have claimed to see the risen Jesus than have seen any macro reptile-to-bird transformations.

Because no one.....no one....is saying reptile-bird evolution was a directly observable event.

Do you not understand that?

Before I respond to this, are you claiming this stuff was seen with directly?

Yes, both in the wild and in the lab.

Strawman. No one is denying speciation...and a reptile-to-bird change ain't speciation.

But it occurred via a series of speciation events.

Can you grasp and retain that?

"I said it didn't occur gradually, either."

But you don't know that because you don't know anything about the subject.

I said before, and I'll say again...a reptile did not evolve into a bird...no matter how many billions of years you think it takes for it to occur.

How do you know? You've never studied the subject, you've never worked in any of the key professions, you've never taken a class in any related subject, you've never read any papers on it....

Literally the only thing you've cited is that a handful of creationists have told you so, and when you find out one of those (Behe) is actually fine with reptile-bird evolution, you just dismiss it without reason.

Maybe it's time you level with us. This has nothing to do with science, does it? After all, how can it if you don't know anything about it?

So what's really behind all this? Is it simply that you believe evolutionary common descent contradicts your reading of the Bible? Is that why you grab on to anything that supports that belief and casually cast aside anything that doesn't (as you did with Behe)?

I keep trying to correct you guys, Jesus is returning soon.

I hope you understand how that points squarely to what I just said....this is about how you read the Bible, not about science.

Then when you post the following to Barb....

Evolution: All living things come from a genetically linked common ancestor, not God.

Christian theism: All living things come from God, who genetically linked all things.

Shame on you, for the continuous mixing of Satan's lie with God's truth.

...that seems to clinch it, doesn't it?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #377]

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

Barb is trying to help educate you. A wise person would take advantage of that, even if you don't agree with him. Pay attention and you might learn enough to discuss the subject more intelligently.

[The Barbarian]

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.

Speciation is still within the same family...and no one is denying this.

Not recently. Used to be creationists said that speciation could not happen. Now, they admit the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. But there's a problem. The same YE definition of "kind" that limits evolution to families, puts humans and chimpanzees in the same family.

God says that life came from non-living matter:
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?

Evolution: All living things come from a genetically linked common ancestor, not God.

No. Evolution: change in allele frequencies in populations over time. God says that life on Earth began by abiogenesis, which is an entirely different thing. You've confused evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent. If God had magically poofed the first living things into being instead of creating the Earth to bring them forth, evolution would work exactly as we see it working. Even Darwin just suggested that God created the first living things.

Christian theism: All living things come from God, who genetically linked all things.

This is true. It's just that YE creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Shame on you, for the continuous mixing of Satan's lie with God's truth.

Creationism is not Satan's lie. YE creationism is just man's revision of God's word. But He doesn't care what you think of evolution. YE creationists, unless they make an idol of their new doctrine, are no less Christian than the rest of us.

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.

Can you conduct a test and simulate those conditions, and get the same results?

Yep. Want some examples?

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.

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

The person who denies the validity of evolution ain't the unreasonable person, trust me.

Doesn't have to be. There are a number of YE creationists who admit the evidence shows evolution, but hope that there will someday be a YE creationist explanation for it.

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?

When you pop open the hood of your car, you'll find similar parts to the car of your neighbor next door, despite you guys having different make and models.

You've confused analogy with homology, and natural objects with man-made artifacts. This is the source of Paley's error. He used a pocketwatch. He had to use a man-made object, because if he used a natural object, no one would buy his reasoning.

What does this mean?

There's a difference between things that are designed (like automobile engines) and natural objects (like living things). God is the Creator. Man, lacking God's power and wisdom merely designs.

This says nothing about evolution.

Observably true. When we observe evolution in progress, it looks nothing like design ad everything like a natural created process. Interestingly, engineers have begun to copy God's method to solve engineering problems that are resistant to design. Would you like to see that? God knows best, after all.

Doesn't have anything to do with any natural, blind, unguided process.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

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.

Yeah, but we can directly observe animals producing their own kind.

And occasionally evolving new species. That's how it works.

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

That is a belief. Not a fact.

It's a fact. That's how forensics works, for example. We can test that idea, and it works very well.

(denial of transitional form between base carnivores and canids)

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

If it's not a Canid, end of discussion.

It's an Amphicyonid some with transitional canid features. Precisely what you claimed could not exist.

Would you like to see the evidence for how the Amphicyonids evolved?

[The Barbarian]

No one is denying speciation...and a reptile-to-bird change ain't speciation.

Well, let's test that assumption. Show me one feature in birds that is not found in any other dinosaur.
What do you have?

[SiNcE_1985]

No one is denying speciation...and a reptile-to-bird change ain't speciation.

Well, let's test that assumption. Show me one feature in birds that is not found in any other dinosaur.
What do you have?

Yeah, let's test that assumption.

Do you have young children, like under 10 years old?

Or what about grandchildren, or nieces or nephews..under 10.

If you do, show them 4 pictures.

Show them three pictures of any 2 legged dinosaurs, and show them one picture of an ostrich.

And ask them to circle which animal is different than the others.

I guarandamntee that they will choose the ostrich.
....

Then, I want you to do the opposite. Show them four pictures.

3 pictures..one of a bald eagle, one of an ostrich, one of an emu, and one of a T-Rex.

Ask them to circle the animal that is different than the others.

I guarandamntee they will circle the T-Rex
....

So, not only do I reject the premise that a bird is a dinosaur, but for you to ask me such a question as if it is some tough challenge, is an insult to my intelligence.

A 5 year old can tell the difference, and if a 5 year old can tell the difference, then why can't adults?

Oh, I get it, because 5 year olds don't have preconceived notions, or religious ideologies, or axes to grind, that adults have.

That's why.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #385]

Well, as long as you view God as the ultimate author of life, then I got no beef with you...at least, not as much.

But what I find astonishing is, you're spending all this time going back and forth with me, and I believe in God.

Yet, not one word is said to the atheists/naturalists, who believe in evolution, WITHOUT God...which is contrary to the position you're defending.

Yet, you are devoting your time and attention to me?

Smh.

Makes me wonder.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #377]

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

Barb is trying to help educate you.

Oh, is that what that is?

A wise person would take advantage of that, even if you don't agree with him. Pay attention and you might learn enough to discuss the subject more intelligently.

A wise person would go to any backyard, zoo, farm, alley, forest, jungle, safari...and that wise person will pay attention to all of the female animals giving birth...and the wise person will conclude based on observation that since all of the animals are giving birth to offspring that look like their mothers and fathers, that there is no reason to conclude that if no one was conveniently around, the offspring would either suddenly or gradually be any different.

Once the wise person concludes this, he'll be able to come up with a more intelligent theory to explain the diversity of life, more intelligent than current the evolution theory.

[SiNcE_1985]

^^