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]

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

Where? Citation please.

I stand corrected.

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

It ain't nonsense.. you've been telling me what you see...and I've been telling you what I don't see.

You see what you see, and I don't see what I don't see.

So why do you keep repeating the sin of pride?

This is 2025, where exposing lies has become taboo, while the telling of lies has become culture.

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

This is a nonsense question, since we both acknowledge that evolutionary theory could still be true, even with ID.

No you don't. Hovind has no scientific expertise

Says who?

and when you found out Behe is fine with common ancestry including humans and primates, you rejected it.

And still do.

You just sift through a handful of creationist material, cherry pick what you want, and throw out the rest.

I take what I need, use it...and discard what I don't.

Then you come in here and act like that alone makes you some sort of expert in biology and evolution.

I'm no expert, but far from a novice.

Frankly, it's really bizarre to watch.

You will be aight.

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?

Man, the way you guys defend your religion (evolution), makes Islamic extremists look like puppy dogs.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #430]

So much for a simple yes or no..

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #430]

So much for a simple yes or no..

Someone once asked "who is my neighbor?"

And He told a story. So much for a simple yes or no.

[benchwarmer]

[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?

I considered reporting this post as it has nothing to do with the OP or to do with science. It's clearly about to lean hard into preaching territory and belongs on another subforum. However, watching you get schooled on Christianity as well as science is kind of amusing, so carry on...

[Jose Fly]

I stand corrected.

Thank you.

It ain't nonsense.. you've been telling me what you see...and I've been telling you what I don't see.

You see what you see, and I don't see what I don't see.

So when evolutionary scientists do experiments and write up manuscripts describing what they saw, do you think they're all lying? Every single one of them throughout history?

This is 2025, where exposing lies has become taboo, while the telling of lies has become culture.

What lies do you think you've exposed here?

This is a nonsense question, since we both acknowledge that evolutionary theory could still be true, even with ID.

Your concession is noted. ID creationism has no utility whatsoever.

Says who?

His background, duh! He has no education, training, or experience in biology.

And still do.

I take what I need, use it...and discard what I don't.

Cherry picking, just like I said. At least you admit it.

I'm no expert, but far from a novice.

Anyone who thinks evolution is a reptile giving birth to a bird, and concludes since they haven't seen that themselves then birds can't be related to reptiles, effectively knows nothing about evolution or biology.

It's very much like someone who says "Jesus was never in the Bible" claiming they're not a novice in knowledge of the Bible.

Man, the way you guys defend your religion (evolution), makes Islamic extremists look like puppy dogs.

This isn't about defending evolution for me. If it were, I'd have left a long time ago since you've not made a single actual argument against it. Instead, this is about watching someone who clearly knows nothing about a subject try and act like he's an expert in it, apparently expect people who do know it to just take his word on things, and generally be completely oblivious to how he's just embarrassing himself.

I've been debating creationists off and on for over 20 years and I've never lost my fascination with how many of y'all seem to be completely lacking in self-awareness. It really is something to behold.

[SiNcE_1985]

I considered reporting this post as it has nothing to do with the OP or to do with science.

Basically, you considered snitching.

Gotcha.

It's clearly about to lean hard into preaching territory and belongs on another subforum.

Um, no it isn't. There was a reason why I asked the question and it had nothing to do with trying to preach.

Plus, once theistic evolution became part of the core conversation, that's when religion became part of the discussion.

However, watching you get schooled on Christianity as well as science is kind of amusing, so carry on...

Me getting schooled? You got a better chance seeing a reptile evolve into a bird.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #430]

So much for a simple yes or no..

Someone once asked "who is my neighbor?"

And He told a story. So much for a simple yes or no.

Yeah, and "Who is my neighbor?" ain't a yes or no question now, is it?

So much for equivalency.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #430]

So much for a simple yes or no..

Someone once asked "who is my neighbor?"

And He told a story. So much for a simple yes or no.

Yeah, and "Who is my neighbor?" ain't a yes or no question now, is it?

The one-word answer, if anyone missed it, is "everyone."

So much for equivalency.

He could have used one word. But sometimes, a story works better. In these two instances, it did.

[SiNcE_1985]

So when evolutionary scientists do experiments and write up manuscripts describing what they saw, do you think they're all lying? Every single one of them throughout history?

See Kent Hovind's "Lies in textbooks".

I can't tell you specifically who is lying, but someone is...and the entire theory is based upon falsehoods.

What lies do you think you've exposed here?

I posted the video. If you disagree, then take it up with Kent.

Your concession is noted. ID creationism has no utility whatsoever.

Reading comprehension. I said it is possible, not it is true.

His background, duh! He has no education, training, or experience in biology.

Who and/or where did the first biologist, get his education, training, and experience in biology...from?

Cherry picking, just like I said. At least you admit it.

I reject nonsense, and keep the stuff that makes sense.

Yeah, I admit to that.

Anyone who thinks evolution is a reptile giving birth to a bird, and concludes since they haven't seen that themselves then birds can't be related to reptiles, effectively knows nothing about evolution or biology.

Anyone who thinks that, over the course of a hundred million years or more, that a reptile will eventually evolve into a bird... effectively knows nothing about biology.

It's very much like someone who says "Jesus was never in the Bible" claiming they're not a novice in knowledge of the Bible.

There is direct evidence of Jesus being in the Bible.

There is no direct evidence of a reptile evolving into a bird.

False equivalency...and the second time you've fallaciously argued that point.

Hopefully, there is no third.

This isn't about defending evolution for me. If it were, I'd have left a long time ago since you've not made a single actual argument against it. Instead, this is about watching someone who clearly knows nothing about a subject try and act like he's an expert in it, apparently expect people who do know it to just take his word on things, and generally be completely oblivious to how he's just embarrassing himself.

I've been debating creationists off and on for over 20 years and I've never lost my fascination with how many of y'all seem to be completely lacking in self-awareness. It really is something to behold.

I said what I said.

[The Barbarian]

I considered reporting this post as it has nothing to do with the OP or to do with science.

Basically, you considered snitching.

Gotcha.

It's clearly about to lean hard into preaching territory and belongs on another subforum.

Um, no it isn't. There was a reason why I asked the question and it had nothing to do with trying to preach.

Plus, once theistic evolution became part of the core conversation, that's when religion became part of the discussion.

However, watching you get schooled on Christianity as well as science is kind of amusing, so carry on...

Me getting schooled? You got a better chance seeing a reptile evolve into a bird.

Since birds are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are reptiles, birds are already highly-evolved reptiles.