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]

Duh, that's exactly the point. "Jesus isn't in the Bible" is as ignorant as "there's no evidence for evolution".

Well, Behe already stated that there is no evidence for evolution...so you have at least one scientists who ain't buying it.

Can you give me at least one person who would dare make the outrageous claim that Jesus isn't in the Bible?

No, you cant.

You gave a false equivalency, is what I am trying to say..so no, it isn't just as ignorant.

Or have you forgotten the fact that we see evolution taking place, all the time?

You see what you see, apparently.

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?

Yeah, sin is a big deal...and included in that big deal package, are things like lies, deception, and false teachings.

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

Perhaps maybe you should, because when you do, it may change your entire outlook on things.

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

Rephrase the question, please...and I'll answer it.

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.

I appeal to them for their expertise on science, not theology.

You do understand the difference, don't you?

And that fact that this seems weird to you, is weird to me.

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.

I do cherry pick...I separate the good cherries (stuff that makes sense) from the bad cherries (nonsense).

[marke]

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.


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

Marke: Darwin paid lip service to God while openly denying the Biblical account of creation by God.

[The Barbarian]

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.

The title of his book, after all. Speciation was his prediction, which has since been repreatedly confirmed.

Thus, the problem.

Not for Christians who accept God's word as it is.

Tell us about the lies Hovind exposed.

(Video suggested)

Let him tell you.

After watching the video, you can't think of even one? Why is that?

(presents family that includes many dinosaurs, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds)

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

Your fellow YE creationists and IDers disagree with you. Would you like me to show you again?

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?[/quote]

Some of Behe's assumptions, such as his belief that irreducible complexity can't evolve, have been refuted by evidence. But otherwise not.

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.

I wonder who could have brought that one up...

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.

That's actually creobabble. I'm sure even elementary school kids know that the forelimbs of T. rex were bigger and stronger than human arms. Hovind isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

[Difflugia]

Well, Behe already stated that there is no evidence for evolution...so you have at least one scientists who ain't buying it.

The problem that creationists have when quoting real scientists, even the ones they think agree with them, is that the scientists' objections are far, far narrower than creationists suppose. Here's what Behe had to say on the subject on page 5 of Darwin's Black Box:

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwins mechanismnatural selection working on variationmight explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

Does that sound like "no evidence for evolution?" It doesn't to me. I hope it doesn't hurt too much if you have to put that back where you got it.

[Clownboat]

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

If you truly believe this, please point to the supreme being/God of evolution. When you cannot meet the definition, you really should realize that you are doing nothing but trying to level the playing field. You likely feel a bit of shame for believing in a being without direct evidence, so it makes you feel better to pretend that others do as well, but such a belief is not justified nor accurate.

I wish you could discuss evolution honestly and acknowledge it for what it is. A scientific theory. Such a thing is not like a Muslim that worships Allah and to think it is, this does you no favors. We are not your Sunday school children here. We know what a theory is and we know what god concepts are, therefore your attempt to level the playing field is invalid in reality.

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

Nothing as far as I can tell, but perhaps I miss your meaning.

A better question is why do chickens have this ability to grow teeth if a god concept created them as chickens? It doesn't make sense.
Guess what does make sense. You guessed it, birds are reptiles and the fact that this chicken grew teeth shows this because they retained this said ability. Again, this makes sense when considering evolution and how it works, but doesn't make sense when considering that your god concept created chickens and had Adam name them.

Why do you think chickens retained this ability? Surely you see that acknowledging that birds are in fact reptiles explains this. What's even more revealing is your continued failure to name even one feature of birds that is not found in some other dinosaurs. This, along with chickens retaining the ability to grow teeth shows the error of your ways.

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.

It has been explained to you many times now that I'm not tied to evolution, meaning your ride or die claim is off base. Again, I assume you are trying to level the playing field pretending that I'm tied to evolution like you are to your god concept, but you are mistaken and I believe our readers notice even though you fail to amend your thinking.

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.

No need as we are basically doing math. If you take one step every second, how many steps will you have taken after a minute? An hour? A decade? Math shows us how addition works and where you continue to fail is in the math equation where you assume that steps must stop at some point. When asked what makes the steps stop, you choke.

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

Hovind wasn't there.

I didn't say that Hovind was there. I said that your claim was once again demonstrably false and then demonstrated that it was false. In place of correcting your thinking and learning, you dodge by bringing up Hovind. How desperate you are to not learn!

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

Your beliefs matter not, especially when we consider the source and how wrong it continues to be without correction.

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

See! You are trying to level the playing field! I get it, you are likely embarrassed, but I do not share in your embarrassment because what I currently believe to be the best explanation seems to be and what's more, I am willing to amend my thinking on the matter if ever I am shown that I should.

If you would be so kind...
Why do you think chickens retain the ability to grow teeth and can you name even one feature of birds that is not found in some other dinosaurs?

[The Barbarian]

Duh, that's exactly the point. "Jesus isn't in the Bible" is as ignorant as "there's no evidence for evolution".

Well, Behe already stated that there is no evidence for evolution...so you have at least one scientists who ain't buying it.

That's wrong:
Behe argues strongly for common descent of all lifeforms on earth, including that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. He states that there is such overwhelming evidence for common ancestry that it should not only be obvious, but "trivial".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

Can you name even one verified prediction of ID that wasn't known before the "prediction?" The Dover Trial, in which Intelligent Design was designated a religious belief was a "train wreck" (Philip Johnson's admission) for ID. Among other things, Michael Behe testified that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

Q And using your definition intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

Behe eventually admitted that his definition of "theory" was pretty much the same as the scientific definition of "hypothesis."

[Jose Fly]

Well, Behe already stated that there is no evidence for evolution

Where? Citation please.

You see what you see, apparently.

That's just a nonsense reply. Is this really the best you can do?

Yeah, sin is a big deal...and included in that big deal package, are things like lies, deception, and false teachings.

So why do you keep repeating the sin of pride?

Rephrase the question, please...and I'll answer it.

You claimed ID creationism has more explanatory power and is more useful than evolutionary theory. Let's see your evidence for that.

I appeal to them for their expertise on science, not theology.

No you don't. Hovind has no scientific expertise and when you found out Behe is fine with common ancestry including humans and primates, you rejected it.

You just sift through a handful of creationist material, cherry pick what you want, and throw out the rest. Then you come in here and act like that alone makes you some sort of expert in biology and evolution.

Frankly, it's really bizarre to watch.

I do cherry pick...I separate the good cherries (stuff that makes sense) from the bad cherries (nonsense).

And how do you tell what's "nonsense" and what isn't? Obviously it's not based on science since you don't know anything about that, and given the emptiness of your posts it's most likely something much more simplistic....."stuff that makes sense" is "stuff that agrees with what I already believe", and "nonsense" is "stuff that conflicts with what I already believe".

That's why, despite all the hours you've spent here, you refuse to discuss any science, you refuse to even look at any science, and you refuse to discuss any of the arguments from creationists.

And that makes me wonder....do you have anything to offer here besides your say-so?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #423]

Question. Do you believe and accept that belief in Jesus is the only way to eternal life?

Yes or no?

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, Behe already stated that there is no evidence for evolution...so you have at least one scientists who ain't buying it.

The problem that creationists have when quoting real scientists, even the ones they think agree with them, is that the scientists' objections are far, far narrower than creationists suppose. Here's what Behe had to say on the subject on page 5 of Darwin's Black Box:

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwins mechanismnatural selection working on variationmight explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

Does that sound like "no evidence for evolution?" It doesn't to me. I hope it doesn't hurt too much if you have to put that back where you got it.

I stand correct on Behe's position.

He is a theistic evolutionist.

But I've said numerous times, that my beef is not with theistic evolution...at least, not at this time.

As long as God is at the helm, I'm willing to agree to disagree on this subject.

But, in general, I disagree with the theory of theistic evolution, as a Christian theist.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #423]

Question. Do you believe and accept that belief in Jesus is the only way to eternal life?

Yes or no?

My apologies, but it's necessary to cite God's word for this important question.

[sermon]I believe what Jesus says:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Here's the details:
Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Do you agree with him? Yes or no. Notice that some of the saved will be puzzled as to why they are being saved. Those are the ones you should consider, and consider why they didn't know about Him and His judgement. Think it over.

The key is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. A lot of non-believers think it merely means that it's good to be kind to the unfortunate. But that's not the actual message.

Jesus told His followers to emulate an unbeliever who shows love for those in need, rather than a strict believer who did not show such love.

Listen to Him. It matters.[/sermon]