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.

[Jose Fly]

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

"Since the Bible never says anything about Jesus" says the person who's never read the Bible.

I don't know

Exactly, you don't know. Yet for whatever reason you completely lack the sort of humility that might help you be more careful about spouting off on subjects you know nothing about.

I always thought the Bible warned against having that sort of pride, but I guess you missed that part?

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.

Again, no one cares what you think about paleontology. You know nothing about it.

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

You're dodging, thereby indicating that you can't answer the question. Again, where is your evidence of ID creationism's utility?

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.

Well I don't really care what their views on that are. I figured you might, but I guess not.

[The Barbarian]

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.

Let's take a look...

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.

Darwin, for example, attributed the creation of life to God...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

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

Show us some of those. Hovind lies a lot. He's a convicted felon, you know.

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.

This seems to be completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, and certainly not consistent with Darwin's writings. If God says that he created nature to produce life, why not just believe Him?

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. [/quote]

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

No. Individuals are stuck with the genomes they have at conception. Populations are constantly evolving.

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

A population. A genus, to be precise. We have a number of individuals from that population. Last time I checked, there there three species of Archaeopteryx, each a population in its own right.

The problem with ID 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.

Actually, that's wrong. Michael Denton and Michael Behe would disagree with that, since both Fellows of the Discovery Institute acknowledge the fact of common descent of all living organisms on Earth.

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

No. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the evidence shows common descent.

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Yeah, it was an extreme example where I used your illogic against you.

You can ignore it though, as long as you acknowledged it.

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

Evolution is a religion. Not every religion has an actual deity.

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/

Um, ok...they retained something that they had long ago.

What does that have to do with them evolving from a non-bird, to a bird?

Nothing.

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

Still wrong. I'm not gonna waste time explaining why you're wrong either. Just, continue being wrong.

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.

Ok, sure. Go with that.

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.

Well, look...if you are that much of a ride or die fan of evolution, that you are willing to postulate my God as the creative agent behind it....then you really must love you some evolution.

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.

So basically, you'll be wrong on two different subjects.

Gotcha.

The logical fact that a whale giving birth to a mouse is not a small change.

I agree. It is on the same level of macro, as a reptile evolving (gradually) to a bird, or a whale being once a land dwelling mammal, which evolved gradually into an aquatic animal as it made its way to the ocean.

Same thing. Same macro.

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.

Show me a population of gradual changing animals, from one class, to another.

And notice I said gradual, so you can't use the "no one is saying X gave birth to Y".

I said gradual, so you can't use that one. I know you are dying to use it.

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.

Ok, then admit it is a belief. Don't call it a fact...and if you want to teach it, teach it in a private school.

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.

To be honest, I actually like your language analogy as to how language evolves over time. I dig it

But as I stated before, the problem is, it is analogous (Latin to English) to any form of evolutionary change of the family/genus/species with living organisms....basically, micro changes.

It is not analogous to Latin to Chinese...or Latin to Arabic...which would be reptile-to-bird; major macro changes.

Not to mention, again, the origin of language itself...that is a problem for naturalism, on its own merit.

But that is neither here nor there, right now.

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

Hovind wasn't there.

D
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.

If they don't come with obituaries, then who are you to tell them where they came from, how they lived, and about their parents and/or children?

They aren't telling you this information. You are telling them this.

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.

I don't believe evolution is science...and the fact that it is considered science, is all part of the scam.

So, neither my religion nor yours is science...so we are on equal playing fields, buddy.

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.

So, of all of the animals that have lived and fossilized, you aren't able to provide a full evolutionary chain of any single animal, in a front to back transition?

All you have are subjective, speculative, one-fossil exhibit?...that could be any animal besides the one you are claiming it to be??

Here is a prediction; of all the millions upon millions of animals that have ever died...we should find the fossilized remains of various animals, within various stages of "evolution", to complete a full chain.

Guess what. We don't.

So fossils actually fail the prediction test, much less supports it.

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?

Back to that, I see.

SMH.

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

I get it.

[SiNcE_1985]

"Since the Bible never says anything about Jesus" says the person who's never read the Bible.

No one, not even skeptics, would ever make that statement, because it is easily falsifiable.

However, not every biologist believes in evolution (although the majority do).

That should tell you something.

Exactly, you don't know. Yet for whatever reason you completely lack the sort of humility that might help you be more careful about spouting off on subjects you know nothing about.

I always thought the Bible warned against having that sort of pride, but I guess you missed that part?

If I am wrong, then I'll let God be the judge of me, not you.

Again, no one cares what you think about paleontology. You know nothing about it.

Ok. I know so little, and you know so much.

Gotcha.

You're dodging, thereby indicating that you can't answer the question. Again, where is your evidence of ID creationism's utility?

I have no problem answering your question, but before I do, can you please answer mines.

To the best of your knowledge, how is the origins of physical reality best explained.

Once you answer this question, I'll answer yours. My word.

Well I don't really care what their views on that are. I figured you might, but I guess not.

I don't really care what their views are either...you're the one that asked.

[Jose Fly]

No one, not even skeptics, would ever make that statement, because it is easily falsifiable.

Duh, that's exactly the point. "Jesus isn't in the Bible" is as ignorant as "there's no evidence for evolution". Or have you forgotten the fact that we see evolution taking place, all the time?

If I am wrong, then I'll let God be the judge of me, not you.

So you intend to keep being so full of pride you'll continue spouting off on subjects you not only don't know anything about, but also go out of your way to maintain that ignorance.

I wonder what sort of impression of Christians you think that gives people. Apparently "sin" isn't such a big deal, is it?

To the best of your knowledge, how is the origins of physical reality best explained.

I don't know. It's not something I've ever really spent much time looking into.

Once you answer this question, I'll answer yours. My word.

Okay. Where is your evidence of the utility of ID creationism?

I don't really care what their views are either...you're the one that asked.

You don't care about the views on the scripture/evolution question from guys you pointed to as being the sole reason for your denial of evolution? That seems weird.

Unless it's just a case of you cherry picking views that agree with what you want to be true and discarding the rest. Then it makes sense.

[SiNcE_1985]

Darwin, for example, attributed the creation of life to God...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

I don't understand a word that was said there.

Show us some of those. Hovind lies a lot. He's a convicted felon, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mathis

Judge Greg Mathis, was a convicted felon too. But now he is an honorable judge, held in high esteem.

Catch my drift?

This seems to be completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, and certainly not consistent with Darwin's writings. If God says that he created nature to produce life, why not just believe Him?

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.

What I said went completely over your head. Moving along.

No. Individuals are stuck with the genomes they have at conception. Populations are constantly evolving.

The only thing constant, has been within family/genus/species.

Anything beyond that, fantasyland.

A population. A genus, to be precise. We have a number of individuals from that population. Last time I checked, there there three species of Archaeopteryx, each a population in its own right.

Right...and it came from a family of what??

Now, here is where the trip to Fantasy Island is about to be booked, right here.

Go on, tell me.

Actually, that's wrong. Michael Denton and Michael Behe would disagree with that, since both Fellows of the Discovery Institute acknowledge the fact of common descent of all living organisms on Earth.

Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[13] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that some biological systems were "irreducibly complex". He thought that these systems could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection. He believed that the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures was that they were created by an "intelligent designer". Irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

I see something about him not believing systems can't evolve via natural selection...I see something about believing the only possible alternative explanation is intelligent design.

So uh, not sure what you are talking about here.

No. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the evidence shows common descent.

Sure, there are some. Just like there a small percentage of people of whom, it they found one million dollars, they would give it to charity.

There are always exceptions.

[The Barbarian]

Darwin, for example, attributed the creation of life to God...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

I don't understand a word that was said there.

"life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"
Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

Show us some of those. Hovind lies a lot. He's a convicted felon, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mathis

Nothing there but some kid who got into trouble and becoming an adult, straightened himself out. Hovind started out as a wealthy minister, and turned to crime.
Catch my drift? But tell us about the lies Hovind exposed.

This seems to be completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, and certainly not consistent with Darwin's writings. If God says that he created nature to produce life, why not just believe Him?

Individuals are stuck with the genomes they have at conception. Populations are constantly evolving.

The only thing constant, has been within family/genus/species.

Which is a religious belief that does not fit the evidence. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit it.

Archaeopteryx is a population. A genus, to be precise. We have a number of individuals from that population. Last time I checked, there there three species of Archaeopteryx, each a population in its own right.

Right...and it came from a family of what??

Dromaeosauridae. Small, bipedal, feathered dinosaurs.

Actually, that's wrong. Michael Denton and Michael Behe would disagree with that, since both Fellows of the Discovery Institute acknowledge the fact of common descent of all living organisms on Earth.

Behe begins the book with an observation that the theory of evolution consists of a coherent relationship of three related ideas: common descent, natural selection, and random mutation. He continues by stating he believes they are distinct ideas, with implications for the theory as a whole; common descent and natural selection he accepts without question but questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[13] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that some biological systems were "irreducibly complex". He thought that these systems could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection. He believed that the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures was that they were created by an "intelligent designer". Irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community.

Nonsense. We see lots of irreducible complexity in living things. No scientist denies it. A recent example is the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria.

Dr. Barry Hall had a culture of bacteria slowly evolve to be able to metabolize a new substance. What he didn't expect that the bacteria also evolved a regulator that only produced the new enzyme if the substance was there for it to feed on. Now, there's a three-part system; substance, enzyme, regulator. If one element of the system is missing, it doesn't work, which is Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.

Here's a hint. A stone arch is irreducibly complex. If one stone is removed, the whole structure collapses. It can't be assembled one stone at a time. So how did the builders do it? If you can figure that out, you can probably figure out how irreducible complexity evolves.

I see something about him not believing systems can't evolve via natural selection...

See above. Reality always has the last word.

Like Denton, he thinks "the designer" set the rules to make sure certain things evolved. I don't think he ever said that God stepped in from time to time to tinker with the system.

Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the evidence shows common descent.

Sure, there are some.

And like the IDers who accept evolution, they tend to be people who actually know what they are talking about. Notice that people like Kent Hovind, who doesn't know anything about biology, tend to be the ones who don't recognize the evidence for evolution.

Which is another important clue.

[SiNcE_1985]

"life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"
Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

He is right about a Creator. Wrong about evolution.

Nothing there but some kid who got into trouble and becoming an adult, straightened himself out. Hovind started out as a wealthy minister, and turned to crime.
Catch my drift?

Its not about where you come from, it's about where you currently are, and what direction you are going in.

But tell us about the lies Hovind exposed.

I'll tell you about it...He gave a video seminar titled "Lies in the Textbooks", where he exposes the lies in the school textbooks.

The video is over 2 hours long.

Thats a lot of lies.

Dromaeosauridae. Small, bipedal, feathered dinosaurs.

No, I mean from which taxonomy family?

Nonsense. We see lots of irreducible complexity in living things. No scientist denies it. A recent example is the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria.

Dr. Barry Hall had a culture of bacteria slowly evolve to be able to metabolize a new substance. What he didn't expect that the bacteria also evolved a regulator that only produced the new enzyme if the substance was there for it to feed on. Now, there's a three-part system; substance, enzyme, regulator. If one element of the system is missing, it doesn't work, which is Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.

Here's a hint. A stone arch is irreducibly complex. If one stone is removed, the whole structure collapses. It can't be assembled one stone at a time. So how did the builders do it? If you can figure that out, you can probably figure out how irreducible complexity evolves.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. But hey, you can win those rhetorical points

And like the IDers who accept evolution, they tend to be people who actually know what they are talking about. Notice that people like Kent Hovind, who doesn't know anything about biology, tend to be the ones who don't recognize the evidence for evolution.

Which is another important clue.

[The Barbarian]

"life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"
Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

He is right about a Creator. Wrong about evolution.

Evolution is a process we see going on constantly. Notice that Darwin didn't endorse common descent. He had no evidence one way or the other for that.

Hovind started out as a wealthy minister, and turned to crime.
Catch my drift?

Its not about where you come from, it's about where you currently are, and what direction you are going in.

Show us he confessed and repented for his crimes.

Tell us about the lies Hovind exposed.

I'll tell you about it...He gave a video seminar titled "Lies in the Textbooks", where he exposes the lies in the school textbooks.
The video is over 2 hours long.
Thats a lot of lies.

But you can't think of even one? That's surprising.

(Archaeopteryx evolved from)
Dromaeosauridae. Small, bipedal, feathered dinosaurs. [/quote]

No, I mean from which taxonomy family?

That is a taxonomic family.

We see lots of irreducible complexity in living things. No scientist denies it. A recent example is the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria.

Dr. Barry Hall had a culture of bacteria slowly evolve to be able to metabolize a new substance. What he didn't expect that the bacteria also evolved a regulator that only produced the new enzyme if the substance was there for it to feed on. Now, there's a three-part system; substance, enzyme, regulator. If one element of the system is missing, it doesn't work, which is Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.

Here's a hint. A stone arch is irreducibly complex. If one stone is removed, the whole structure collapses. It can't be assembled one stone at a time. So how did the builders do it? If you can figure that out, you can probably figure out how irreducible complexity evolves.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Showing you that science is quite aware of irreducible complexity. It's even been observed to evolve.

And like the IDers who accept evolution, they tend to be people who actually know what they are talking about. Notice that people like Kent Hovind, who doesn't know anything about biology, tend to be the ones who don't recognize the evidence for evolution.

Which is another important clue. Hovind once asserted that cavemen killed T. rex by "pulling off their tiny arms."

lol

No kidding.

[SiNcE_1985]

Evolution is a process we see going on constantly. Notice that Darwin didn't endorse common descent. He had no evidence one way or the other for that.

He endorsed macroevolution, though.

Thus, the problem.

Show us he confessed and repented for his crimes.

All I know is, he got out and picked up where he left off...exposing lies and speaking out against evolution.

What he does with his personal life is not of my concern and is between him and God

Tell us about the lies Hovind exposed.

Let him tell you.

But you can't think of even one? That's surprising.

I'm showing you better than telling you^.

That is a taxonomic family.

Yup, you are correct on the family.

However, you've just left science and are now on Fantasy Island.

How much are those flights, nowadays?

We see lots of irreducible complexity in living things. No scientist denies it. A recent example is the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria.

I thought Behe and his irreducible complexity was rejected as science?

Dr. Barry Hall had a culture of bacteria slowly evolve to be able to metabolize a new substance. What he didn't expect that the bacteria also evolved a regulator that only produced the new enzyme if the substance was there for it to feed on. Now, there's a three-part system; substance, enzyme, regulator. If one element of the system is missing, it doesn't work, which is Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.

Here's a hint. A stone arch is irreducibly complex. If one stone is removed, the whole structure collapses. It can't be assembled one stone at a time. So how did the builders do it? If you can figure that out, you can probably figure out how irreducible complexity evolves.

Speaking of evolution...I notice this conversation is evolving into the subject of irreducible complexity.

Showing you that science is quite aware of irreducible complexity. It's even been observed to evolve.

And like the IDers who accept evolution, they tend to be people who actually know what they are talking about. Notice that people like Kent Hovind, who doesn't know anything about biology, tend to be the ones who don't recognize the evidence for evolution.

Which is another important clue. Hovind once asserted that cavemen killed T. rex by "pulling off their tiny arms."

I grow weary of bio-babble.