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.

[Clownboat]

<Snipped a question about how I think Jesus would view someone patiently waiting to rape someone>

Your patience dealing with someone who simply won't buy in to your false religions beliefs, is not a patience that Jesus would approve of.

You are wrong because I currently don't belong to a religion.

This is the difference between my intepretation of fossils, and yours.

Readers, ask yourself if this poster has interpreted any fossils. All I see is denial of the fossil record.

And while walking, we stumble across the fossils of Archaeopteryx...

Your interpretation: This appears to be a bird fossil, with teeth. But wait, birds don't have teeth. So surely, this must be the transition link between reptiles, and birds!!!

My interpretation: This appears to be a bird fossil, with teeth. From the looks of things, contrary to the birds of today, the birds of yesterday must have had teeth!!

Same observation, different interpretation.

Would you like to learn why your interpretation is wrong and why it needs to be corrected?
"The accidental discovery revealed that chickens retain the ability to grow teeth, even though birds lost this feature long ago."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rows-alli/

I said that instead of having my name in something like a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, I'd rather have it in the Lamb's Book of Life.

You reject evolution as an explanation because you are trying to get your name in a Lamb's Book of Life.

It had nothing to do about not knowing about evolution.

You not knowing much about evolution protects your perceived ability to get your name in a Book of Life. Again, this was brought up when you pretended that evolution is my religion. You are tied to not understanding evolution and I am open to evolution being replaced by a better explanation. How we approach understanding evolution is not the same and that I argue is what dictates our differing understanding about it.

I said that since life can't naturally originate, then it can't naturally evolve.

Which is why I granted, for the sake of debate (ya, I'm that generous) that it was your preferred god concept that created life and then used evolution as a mechanism for life to change.
From there you have dodge every single chance at explaining why your god concept couldn't have done such a thing, revealing why your position is illogical.

Hey, if you believe birds are reptiles...obviously, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want.

Viewing the evidence that birds are reptiles does not lead to the conclusion that a person can believe whatever they want. For example, I cannot believe that Santa delivers presents even though birds are reptiles.

Which is why I requested a mechanism that stops small changes from becoming larger changes. Remember what you offered? You said that because life began, changes in populations must stop at some point. I know, right!

Right, and as I pointed out before...

"What can stop those small changes from becoming larger changes"

contradicts..

"A mouse evolving into a whale is ridiculous" (insinuation).

Ridiculous? Wait, whats stopping it? The same question you asked me.

The logical fact that a whale giving birth to a mouse is not a small change. It is so far off from being accurate that if such a thing happened, the ToE would need to be scrapped.
What you continue to fail to provide is a valid mechanism that would at some point stop changes within a population from happening. If changes continue to happen within a population, change will happen within the population.

The changes that we notice, doesn't reflect the fantasy changes you believe occurred.

What I believe will logically follow. Continued changes will cause change, which is why I continue to ask for a mechanism that would stop change at one point. If there isn't a said mechanism, change will do what change does.

Latin producing English (micro) is different than English producing Arabic (macro).

Latin did not produce English and English did not produce Arabic. It would help if you used valid real world analogies.
I will grant for you that the above scenario that didn't take place would be macro though if that will help to foster debate, I just don't understand the provided invalid analogy.

Readers, this poster denies evolution because they cannot see one animal give birth to a different animal.

I said evolution aint happening, neither suddenly, or gradually.

Thank you for once again confirming my words. You are kind.

Yeah, but no one is asking for my "belief" to be taught in public classrooms.

This claim is once again demonstrably false. See the Dover trials from 2005 where your beliefs were ruled on.

Do those fossils come with obituaries, telling us about the life of the animal, when it died, and what evolved to or from?

No Since_1985, fossils do not come with obituaries. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for or are you just being silly? Information about how they might have lived or died might be discernable though.

Note only this, but we also can make predictions about predecessors and successors that are later shown to be true. Imagine that, something false that can predict.

Sure you can. We can make predictions, too.

Yeah, Christians predict that Jesus will return at the right hour.

The prediction I evidenced was.... evidenced. Please stop pretending that our predictions are equal. One happened, just as predicted and you are simply alluding to a religions prediction, in the Science sub-forum of all places.

You are obviously free to believe whatever you wish.

This fails to justify your denial, but I hear you.

Um, no...you are trying to distract me with a link, while I'm asking for the entire chain.

In truth, it is you that is the distracter.
I pointed to a prediction that was made due to evolution. In place of acknowledging the prediction that took place, you distract by asking about other links. Your distraction does not nullify the prediction that did happen.

What?? If there are no limitations to the changes as you insinuated, then I expect to see anything and everything.

You are the one who made the insinuation. Either retract what you said, or show & tell.

It's time for show and tell then.
Since it is true that dogs produce dogs, only a silly person would ask to see a whale give birth to a mouse, right?

Evolution does not belong in the science discussion.

You are wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory and scientific theories do belong in the science sub-forum.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

My position is simple...

Suppose I am wrong in my interpretation of Genesis 1, and Barb is right?

After all, there is nothing logically wrong with Barb's interpretation...because it is certainly possible for evolution to be an act of God.

Possible, yes.

So, I leave the door open for it...which is why I said I'm ok with it.

However, since I dont believe Barb's interpretation is correct and I find it to actually contradict scripture, then I have no choice but to call it a blasphemous, false teaching.

Do you understand now, or do I have to walk you through it more?

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.

1. You don't know if those fossils had any children.

2. And you certainly don't know if they had different children.

I mean, that's all I said....and those are simply 2 factual statements.

So, I know enough to know that much.

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?

Intelligent Design has more explanatory power than any naturalistic theory, to produce the said effective.

That makes it the better theory.

And it is not inconsistent with my religious beliefs, don't know how many more times I have to say this.

Above you said it was blasphemous.

If it's not true.

He clarified in post #392

In post #380, he said something contrary..but he was speaking of fossil evidence as you are..of which my same response to your fossil appeal...applies.

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

To whomever it applies, then.

[The Barbarian]

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.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

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.

From one of the founders of ID, Michael Denton, in Nature's Destiny
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii).

He's not alone. IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Micheal Behe describes himself as an evolutionist.

There are some Christians among IDers who think God was the "designer." But others think the God of Abraham could not have been the designer. Discovery Institute founder Philip Johnson says the designer might have been "a space alien." Since engineers using genetic algorithms have shown that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design for complex problems, I'm pretty sure God got it right the first time.

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 big problem creationists seem to have with God doing it, is that evolution proceeds in nature by random variation as well as natural selection. The first answer is that a random process plus a non-random process is a non-random process. But there's a strong theological objection to denying evolution on the argument against random action in creation:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 22. The Providence of God

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

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

That's my conclusion also. No way to prove it by evidence, but it is a reasonable argument.

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

What was he saying, then?

The point is that evolution (a change in allele frequencies in a population) is directly observable. Even new kinds of species have been observed to evolve. But hundreds of millions of years of evolution are evidence in things like genetics, anatomy, fossil record, etc.

[Clownboat]

because it is certainly possible for evolution to be an act of God.

I have no choice but to call it a blasphemous, false teaching.

So you now find a blasphemous, false teaching to be possible? Surely you see that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

"Speaking out of both sides of your mouth" means to say contradictory things, expressing different opinions on the same subject depending on the situation, often seen as dishonest or hypocritical behavior.

Do you understand now, or do I have to walk you through it more?

I think you owe us some walking.

[The Barbarian]

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.

My position is simple...

Suppose I am wrong in my interpretation of Genesis 1, and Barb is right?

After all, there is nothing logically wrong with Barb's interpretation...because it is certainly possible for evolution to be an act of God.

Possible, yes.

So, I leave the door open for it...which is why I said I'm ok with it.

However, since I dont believe Barb's interpretation is correct and I find it to actually contradict scripture, then I have no choice but to call it a blasphemous, false teaching.

Do you understand now, or do I have to walk you through it more?

I think you've confused error with blasphemy. One of us in error as to what God is saying in Genesis. If it happens that you are wrong, does that make you guilty of blasphemy? Of course it doesn't.

blas-phe-my blas-f-m
plural blasphemies
Synonyms of blasphemy
1a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
accused of blasphemy
b: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
for a mere man to suggest that he was divine could only be viewed as blasphemy
John Bright 1889
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

1. You don't know if those fossils had any children.

It would be astonishing if we happened to get the very fossil of the individual in the line that led to new taxa. Since individuals don't evolve, and populations do, we can only see what the population at the time was like, compared to earlier and later stages of the same population.

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?

Intelligent Design has more explanatory power than any naturalistic theory, to produce the said effective.

The problem is that it makes no predictions. And so it's not a scientific theory at all. It's a religious/philosophical belief. A very, very large number of predictions of evolutionary theory have been subsequently confirmed.

This doesn't mean that ID is false any more than it means that any other supernatural entity is false. It merely means that it can't be scientifically verified or falsified.

[SiNcE_1985]

I think you've confused error with blasphemy. One of us in error as to what God is saying in Genesis. If it happens that you are wrong, does that make you guilty of blasphemy? Of course it doesn't.

blas-phe-my blas-f-m
plural blasphemies
Synonyms of blasphemy
1a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
b: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
for a mere man to suggest that he was divine could only be viewed as blasphemy
John Bright 1889

Not so fast.

Let's go with those two definitions.

I am of the strong belief, that evolution is a lie perpetrated by mainly unbelievers of God, and taking what God did, and attributing to something else.

Lies are being told with the teachings of evolution (See Kent Hovind's: Lies in the Textbooks).

In the Bible, when acts of God are degraded, and substituted with lies, falsehoods, and deceit..this can be viewed showing contempt and/or lack of reverence for God...which is what, even in your definition, means.

It would be astonishing if we happened to get the very fossil of the individual in the line that led to new taxa. Since individuals don't evolve, and populations do, we can only see what the population at the time was like, compared to earlier and later stages of the same population.

This is biobabble. Populations, in its simplist form, is broken down to individuals.

For example, archaeopteryx (what you believe to be a transitional fossil), is that a population, or an individual?

The problem is that it makes no predictions. And so it's not a scientific theory at all. It's a religious/philosophical belief. A very, very large number of predictions of evolutionary theory have been subsequently confirmed.

This doesn't mean that ID is false any more than it means that any other supernatural entity is false. It merely means that it can't be scientifically verified or falsified.

It does make predictions, any evolution that occurs, will take place at the family/genus/species level.

That is a verifiable theory, and has been predicted and proven.

If you go this, you are leaving science, and traveling to Fantasy Island.

[Jose Fly]

My position is simple...

Suppose I am wrong in my interpretation of Genesis 1, and Barb is right?

After all, there is nothing logically wrong with Barb's interpretation...because it is certainly possible for evolution to be an act of God.

Possible, yes.

So, I leave the door open for it...which is why I said I'm ok with it.

However, since I dont believe Barb's interpretation is correct and I find it to actually contradict scripture, then I have no choice but to call it a blasphemous, false teaching.

Then that's where your discussion with Barb (and everyone else) should be focused, since your position isn't at all based on science (it can't be since you don't know anything about the science).

1. You don't know if those fossils had any children.

2. And you certainly don't know if they had different children.

I mean, that's all I said....and those are simply 2 factual statements.

So, I know enough to know that much.

Well I suppose it's always possible that every single fossil we've discovered just happened to be the last remaining members of their species, and it's also possible that they all just happened to come from the only populations that never ever evolved (apparently reproducing themselves without variation in perpetuity).

About as possible as layers of volcanic ash not really coming from volcanoes, but instead coming from aliens who smoked a lot.

Possible, yes. Likely? Hardly.

Intelligent Design has more explanatory power than any naturalistic theory, to produce the said effective.

That makes it the better theory.

Again those are just claims. Where's your evidence of its utility?

And it is not inconsistent with my religious beliefs, don't know how many more times I have to say this.

So you disagree with Meyers, Wells, and Behe? And why are you touting its alleged utility if you don't believe it?

[SiNcE_1985]

So you now find a blasphemous, false teaching to be possible? Surely you see that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

"Speaking out of both sides of your mouth" means to say contradictory things, expressing different opinions on the same subject depending on the situation, often seen as dishonest or hypocritical behavior.

I think you owe us some walking.

Apparently, you dont know the difference between having the power to do something, and having the power + the will to do something.

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Then that's where your discussion with Barb (and everyone else) should be focused, since your position isn't at all based on science (it can't be since you don't know anything about the science).

Well, since evolution itself isn't based on science, I guess we're even.

Well I suppose it's always possible that every single fossil we've discovered just happened to be the last remaining members of their species, and it's also possible that they all just happened to come from the only populations that never ever evolved (apparently reproducing themselves without variation in perpetuity).

I don't know, but that doesn't allow me to plan a trip to Fantasy Island, just because I don't have answers to the questions.

And just because no obituary came with the corpse, doesn't mean you are allowed to create one for the corpse on your own accord...which is what your doing.

You are free to imagine, assume, and speculate.

But don't call these things, facts...because they aren't.

About as possible as layers of volcanic ash not really coming from volcanoes, but instead coming from aliens who smoked a lot.

Possible, yes. Likely? Hardly.

Opinions may vary.

Again those are just claims. Where's your evidence of its utility?

What is your theory for physical existence, and it's origins?

So you disagree with Meyers, Wells, and Behe? And why are you touting its alleged utility if you don't believe it?

I dont know their positions on whether a belief in evolution effects the Gospel.

So, research their position on it, and get back with me.

[Clownboat]

I am of the strong belief, that evolution is a lie perpetrated by mainly unbelievers of God, and taking what God did, and attributing to something else.

This is the science sub-forum. What you can show/suggest to be the case is what belongs here.
We understand that you feel this way and we understand why you feel this way, but that doesn't show/suggest anything here.

Lies are being told with the teachings of evolution (See Kent Hovind's: Lies in the Textbooks).

If you feel there is something valid in this book, please present it for examination. You might be surprised at just how familiar we are with Hovind.

<snipped more Bible/God talk>

This has been asked of you many times now: "Can you name even one feature of birds that is not found in some other dinosaurs?"
Can you put your feelings aside for a moment and answer the question? Your feelings about a God should not be stopping you from answering this direct question.

For example, archaeopteryx (what you believe to be a transitional fossil), is that a population, or an individual?

Which of the 14 fossils of archaeopteryx are you asking about? If all 14, would that constitute an example of a population or 14 individuals for you?