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.

[The Barbarian]

[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.

None of them "believe in" evolution, far as I can tell. One accepts or rejects scientific theories on the evidence, not faith. This is why theists and atheists can both do science. Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. But even if the origin of life was part of his theory, it wouldn't matter.

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

They accept the fact of evolution. I'm not sure who doesn't accept the fact of God, but ask yourself, would they be more inclined to accept that God made them and Jesus died for them and He wants them to spend eternity with Him, if they knew that Christian belief did not require them to deny the truth about evolution?

This is the real damage that YE creationism does to God's Church. It doesn't matter to your salvation if you accept or reject evolution; that's not how your salvation is determined. But it matters if unnecessary doctrines push others away from Him.

[The Barbarian]

BTW, my point is that evolution, including macroevolution, is a directly observed phenomenon. That doesn't mean that the whole process of evolution from stem reptiles to modern birds can be directly observed.

Some years ago, in Arkansas, I met a guy who was bicycling from Florida to Alaska. I watched him for less than a mile. But given the pictures he had on his camera, I had very good evidence of his travel that far. A pretty good number of informed YE creationists admit the fact.

[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?

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.

Well, let's take a look...




I'm pretty sure even a young kid would distinguish the maniraptorans from other theorpods.

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

Again, correctly distinguishing maniraptorans from the other theropod.

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.

It really isn't. I wish someone could show me one difference between birds and other dinosaurs. I used to know of one, but it turned out to be found in some other dinosaurs as well. It's not an easy question. Kids would probably see that birds and other maniraptorans are a group, to the exclusion of other theropods like T. rex.

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.

Pretty much.

[Jose Fly]

Oh, is that what that is?

He's trying, but you don't seem at all willing to learn even the most basic of things. That's too bad.

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.

And what does that wise person conclude when they see evolution producing new species? Then when that person sees new species appear in the fossil record, why wouldn't that person conclude that they were produced by the same process that produces new species today?

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.

Well heck, why haven't Hovind, et al. done that? Why haven't they come up with a better theory that produces better results?

If you want to posit that God used evolution as an means of creation. Fine. I can rest my case there.

So you're okay with reptile-bird evolution, so long as God was behind it? If so, how would that change all that stuff you've posted here about mothers giving birth, indirect evidence, etc.? Does the evidence suddenly change?

Hmm. A couple posts ago, Barb was just saying it is.

No Barb was not saying reptile-bird evolution should be directly observable. You misunderstood.

But apparently you're okay with his belief in theistic evolution, including bird-reptile evolution, so what does it matter? You shouldn't be debating him, you should be agreeing with him!

[benchwarmer]

This is the real damage that YE creationism does to God's Church. It doesn't matter to your salvation if you accept or reject evolution; that's not how your salvation is determined. But it matters if unnecessary doctrines push others away from Him.

So much this.

If I happened to be on the fence about Christianity, I certainly wouldn't pay any attention to someone who is clearly ignoring reality over a faith position. Once someone is clearly denying scientific findings to maintain their preferred religious beliefs, I won't waste any time listening to their religious views whether they might be right or not. I just assume they are wrong and not worth listening to.

While interlocutors who debate like this feel like they are doing God's work, they ironically are doing the work of their Satan (if one should believe in such things). As an atheist it's kind of amusing to watch, but as a Christian I imagine it must be somewhat infuriating to have such people give such a bad look to their side.

As an ex-Christian I realize not all Christians are illogical and you (Barbarian) being here is further proof. Christians who understand and are perhaps trying to use science to discover the wonders of their God is at least admirable even if I don't think it's a useful endeavor. At least they are using the best method we currently have to study physical reality.

[Clownboat]

Marke:
The Great Unconformity: Searching for the Earths Missing Time at the Grand Canyon
By Conelisa N. Hubilla Updated: Jun 12 2024, 04:59 AM EDT
The Grand Canyon is an important key in understanding the Earth's geologic history, with layers of rocks stacked upon one another as they were laid down millions of years ago. However, there is a gap between rock layers which represent a billion years in some places.
Missing Layers
In 1869, while exploring the Grand Canyon, geologist John Wesley Powell noticed a gap in ages between rock layers. A rock layer, about 520 million years old, was sitting on top of rocks that were 1.4-1.8 billion years old.
It was Clarence Dutton, who gave the discrepancy the name "The Great Unconformity" in his 1882 book "Tertiary History of the Grand Caon District." It is also assumed that the Great Unconformity was so-named because of the large interval of time it represents.
The mystery even grew when other places around the world like North America were found to have missing rock dating from before 550 million years ago. Before that, up to a billion years of rock and history were missing from the Earth.

To keep it simple, all you are bringing up is that there have been large gaps in the geologic record that are the result of long periods of erosion.
e-ro-sion
/rZH()n/
noun
the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents.

The Grand Canyon does not suggest a global flood. It shows the opposite.
Again: "The fact that fossils in the Grand Canyon are not mixed up as they would be if a global flood caused them and the horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon demonstrate that your words are false."

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #391]

Again, you believe in the Christian God, correct?

Then I got no beef with you...although, your view of creation conflicts with the Biblical account...thus, you are still pushing a false teaching.

But, that is a debate for another day.

My beef is the idea that evolution can be true without a divine hand behind it, which is not your position, and not your debate.

So I really don't have nothing more to say to you...and I say this with the utmost respect.

[SiNcE_1985]

As an ex-Christian I realize not all Christians are illogical and you (Barbarian) being here is further proof.

Inviting a "Christian" to the BBQ, just as long as they accept evolution .

[SiNcE_1985]

He's trying, but you don't seem at all willing to learn even the most basic of things. That's too bad.

Yeah, he is trying to mix lies (evolution) with true (God).

Blasphemous.

And what does that wise person conclude when they see evolution producing new species? Then when that person sees new species appear in the fossil record, why wouldn't that person conclude that they were produced by the same process that produces new species today?

The wise person would know that there is no fossil record.

You don't know if those fossils had any children, and you certainly don't know if they had different children.

All you can do is speculate, which is fine.

But once you pass off this speculation as fact, that is where it becomes a problem.

Well heck, why haven't Hovind, et al. done that? Why haven't they come up with a better theory that produces better results?

They did.

It is called "intelligent design" aka "God did it".

That is the better theory.

So you're okay with reptile-bird evolution, so long as God was behind it? If so, how would that change all that stuff you've posted here about mothers giving birth, indirect evidence, etc.? Does the evidence suddenly change?

The presented evidence suddenly makes sense, if God was behind it.

Without God, nothing is naturally possible..no life, no consciousness, no evolution.

No Barb was not saying reptile-bird evolution should be directly observable. You misunderstood.

What was he saying, then?

But apparently you're okay with his belief in theistic evolution, including bird-reptile evolution so what does it matter? You shouldn't be debating him, you should be agreeing with him!

You understand the difference between being ok if something is true, and the belief that something is true.

Or do I need to break it down?

What I am not ok with, is the idea that any of it happened without God, which is why I am debating YOU.

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, he is trying to mix lies (evolution) with true (God).

Blasphemous.

You're talking yourself in circles now. In one instance you say you're okay with evolution if God was behind it, but here you say evolution with God behind it is blasphemous.

Maybe you need to think about it a bit more and get back to us when you have a consistent position.

The wise person would know that there is no fossil record.

You don't know if those fossils had any children, and you certainly don't know if they had different children.

All you can do is speculate, which is fine.

But once you pass off this speculation as fact, that is where it becomes a problem.

Well to be honest I'm not interested in opinions about fossils from a person who knows nothing at all about fossils or paleontology.

I mean, would you value an opinion about the Bible from someone who's never read it? I wouldn't.

They did.

It is called "intelligent design" aka "God did it".

That is the better theory.

That's an interesting claim. Do you have any evidence that it's a better theory that produces better results? Or do you just think it's better because it's consistent with your religious beliefs?

The presented evidence suddenly makes sense, if God was behind it.

Above you said it was blasphemous.

What was he saying, then?

He clarified in post #392

What I am not ok with, is the idea that any of it happened without God, which is why I am debating YOU.

I've never said anything one way or the other about gods' involvement.