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]

If that's true then he's a terrible speaker when it comes to science, which emphasizes accuracy and preciseness.

But if we all agree that evolution is indeed a fact, that's fine.

Opinions.

Then we agree that the evolution of new species is just observed reality.

Never denied this.

It's simply a matter of public record that Hovind is a felon, wife abuser, and tax fraud.

It is what it is.

His videos show that he's also a conspiracy theorist and liar.

Opinions.

This is where I'm at with Hovind's video....

He says "evolution is not a fact, it's a religion". That's another lie. As we've already established evolution is an observed fact of reality.

He cites a textbook noting that the majority of Christians have no problem with evolution and only a minority of fundamentalists do. He claims that is a lie because (at the time of the video) a majority of American Christians don't agree with evolution. But the textbook didn't specify Americans, it merely referred to Christians as a whole. So either Hovind is somehow ignorant of the existence of Christians outside of America, or he's being deliberately deceitful.

He then claims "evolution is not part of science". That's another lie. As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, our understanding of how evolution occurs and of the relationships between taxa is a fundamental aspect of entire fields of science such as comparative genomics. In my work we utilize our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms such as random mutation and genetic drift to inform our future population management activities, and we utilize our understanding of the evolutionary history of various species to inform other recovery and restoration actions.

That's from the first 10 minutes, and at around that point he starts going on about the Grand Canyon, and concludes by saying that teaching kids anything other than the young-earth creationist belief = lying. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious problem there.

More later.

We don't need a play by play.

If you got problems with Hovind, take it up with Hovind.

He's been owning and slapping around evolutionists for years.

Apparently, he missed one (you).

[Jose Fly]

Opinions.

Never denied this.

If you don't deny that new species evolve, then we do indeed agree that evolution is a fact.

We don't need a play by play.

You wanted me to watch the video! Why?

And I have to wonder what your goal is in this thread. If you don't want to discuss the science and you don't want to discuss anything from the creationists you find persuasive, what do you want to discuss?

If you got problems with Hovind, take it up with Hovind.

Nobody cares about Hovind. He's as relevant to science as flat-earthers are to geography.

Here are the last of my notes from his video before I stopped (since you don't want to discuss any of it)...

He then gets into geology and says early geologists just made up the idea of geologic strata "out of the clear blue sky", which is an obvious lie.

Then he repeats one of his more notorious lies, i.e., that the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere on earth. The entire column can be seen in the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin of North Dakota.

Next he says geologic strata are dated by the fossils they contain and the fossils are dated by what strata they're in, and accuses scientists of circular reasoning. That's obviously a lie as well, since geologic strata are initially dated via radiometric dating using multiple isotopes, some of which decay by completely different means.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you don't deny that new species evolve, then we do indeed agree that evolution is a fact.

Speciation is not macroevolution.

We reject macroevolution.

You wanted me to watch the video! Why?

You asked for proof of lies in the textbook, and I merely provided a video which demonstrates such.

The video was for you, not me, nor was it meant to be discussed.

And I have to wonder what your goal is in this thread. If you don't want to discuss the science and you don't want to discuss anything from the creationists you find persuasive, what do you want to discuss?

The OP asked a question, and I merely shared my thoughts.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody cares about Hovind. He's as relevant to science as flat-earthers are to geography.

Here are the last of my notes from his video before I stopped (since you don't want to discuss any of it)...

He then gets into geology and says early geologists just made up the idea of geologic strata "out of the clear blue sky", which is an obvious lie.

Then he repeats one of his more notorious lies, i.e., that the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere on earth. The entire column can be seen in the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin of North Dakota.

Next he says geologic strata are dated by the fossils they contain and the fossils are dated by what strata they're in, and accuses scientists of circular reasoning. That's obviously a lie as well, since geologic strata are initially dated via radiometric dating using multiple isotopes, some of which decay by completely different means.

Ok, reach out to him, and ask him to debate the topic... he'll oblige.

[Jose Fly]

Speciation is not macroevolution.

Yes it is. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species, such as bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. "Macroevolution" is evolution outside of a species....speciation.

We reject macroevolution.

Most likely what you're thinking of is common ancestry/common descent, such as human/primate common ancestry.

You asked for proof of lies in the textbook, and I merely provided a video which demonstrates such.

LOL, it showed that Hovind is a habitual liar, which is consistent with him also being a felon, wife abuser, tax cheat, conspiracy theorist, etc.

The video was for you, not me, nor was it meant to be discussed.

I can see why. You can't defend anything in it.

The OP asked a question, and I merely shared my thoughts.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Anything else, or are you done here?

Ok, reach out to him, and ask him to debate the topic... he'll oblige.

I have no more interest in debating Hovind than I do in debating a flat-earther. Both are equally irrelevant to science.

[SiNcE_1985]

Speciation is not macroevolution.

Yes it is. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species, such as bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. "Macroevolution" is evolution outside of a species....speciation.

Nonsense.

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

This is stuff that happens within the family.

A dog, wolf, and coyote are different species (although I question this, but let's go with it), but they are still under the categorical (taxo) family of animal.

They are different varieties of the same "kind".

No one is denying this, not even Kent. This is micro stuff that we can see.

What we are denying is the jump from class, to family, which no one sees, and any assumed indirect stuff is fantasyland.

Most likely what you're thinking of is common ancestry/common descent, such as human/primate common ancestry.

Fantasyland.

LOL, it showed that Hovind is a habitual liar, which is consistent with him also being a felon, wife abuser, tax cheat, conspiracy theorist, etc.

1. John Gotti was a convicted criminal.

2. He murdered many men.

3. Therefore, he is an adulterer who cheated on his wife.

Non sequitur. Does not logically follow.

I can see why. You can't defend anything in it.

Can, but won't.

Anything else, or are you done here?

Done.

I have no more interest in debating Hovind than I do in debating a flat-earther. Both are equally irrelevant to science.

Opinions.

[Jose Fly]

Nonsense.

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

This is stuff that happens within the family.

A dog, wolf, and coyote are different species (although I question this, but let's go with it), but they are still under the categorical (taxo) family of animal.

Since you find Wiki to be a valid source...

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

"Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which occur at and above the species level. In contrast, microevolution is evolution occurring within the population(s) of a single species. In other words, microevolution is the scale of evolution that is limited to intraspecific (within-species) variation, while macroevolution extends to interspecific (between-species) variation."

Exactly as I described.

They are different varieties of the same "kind".

"Kind" has no meaning in biology or taxonomy.

No one is denying this, not even Kent. This is micro stuff that we can see.

What we are denying is the jump from class, to family, which no one sees, and any assumed indirect stuff is fantasyland.

Kent is lying to you again, this time by making up his own definitions for words. And I've already explained to you that evolutionary changes between larger taxa occurs via series of speciation events, not in one birth.

At least try and learn something from this.

1. John Gotti was a convicted criminal.

2. He murdered many men.

3. Therefore, he is an adulterer who cheated on his wife.

Non sequitur. Does not logically follow.

Except I didn't follow that path. I specifically identified several lies Hovind told in just over 20 mins of his video, and from that I concluded that he is a habitual liar.

After that, I merely noted how his habitual lying is consistent with his other despicable behaviors.

Done.

I hope you managed to learn at least a few things from all this, such as that events don't need to be directly observed before we can conclude that they happened, or that evolution from one broader taxa to another occurs via a series of speciation events rather than via a single birth event.

[SiNcE_1985]

Since you find Wiki to be a valid source...

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

"Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which occur at and above the species level. In contrast, microevolution is evolution occurring within the population(s) of a single species. In other words, microevolution is the scale of evolution that is limited to intraspecific (within-species) variation, while macroevolution extends to interspecific (between-species) variation."

Exactly as I described.

No, exactly how I described.

I stated that Kent (and I) supports microevolution, not macroevolution.

Nothing in the excerpt of the article you posted contradicts my distinction between macro and micro.

And your assessment of what speciation was wrong, as I demonstrated.

I'm not even sure why you even posted the excerpt.

So, let me get this straight; you're the subject matter expert, and I'm not?

Ha.

"Kind" has no meaning in biology or taxonomy.

Ok, if you go in a pet store and ask them to take you to the canine section, and you are taken to the feline section...will you accept this?

Probably not, because you'll recognize that the kind you asked for, isn't the same kind as where you were taken.

I mean, it is really that simple...but when you want to flex your bio muscle and try to get all technical and bio-metri'ty and implement fantasies, that's when simple things become unnecessarily complicated.

But it is you that is making it complicated, not the actual reality of the situation.

The reality is simple...the people with axes to grind are the ones taking simple concepts, and over- complicating it and making it convoluted.

Kent is lying to you again, this time by making up his own definitions for words. And I've already explained to you that evolutionary changes between larger taxa occurs via series of speciation events, not in one birth.

Um, you explained to me the theory of your fantasy, true.

I just don't share that fantasy.

At least try and learn something from this.

I am learning.

I'm learning how ridiculous evolution is every time we discuss it.

Except I didn't follow that path. I specifically identified several lies Hovind told in just over 20 mins of his video, and from that I concluded that he is a habitual liar.

After that, I merely noted how his habitual lying is consistent with his other despicable behaviors.

You say he is a liar...he is saying your whole religion (evolution) and Bibles (science textbooks) are liars.

So hey, let he who is convinced, remain convinced.

I hope you managed to learn at least a few things from all this, such as that events don't need to be directly observed before we can conclude that they happened, or that evolution from one broader taxa to another occurs via a series of speciation events rather than via a single birth event.

I told you what I learned^.

[Jose Fly]

No, exactly how I described.

Nope.

I stated that Kent (and I) supports microevolution, not macroevolution.

Yet the Wiki article specifically says macroevolution is evolution at the species level. So now you don't "support" the evolution of new species, even though previously we agreed to it?

Make up your mind.

And your assessment of what speciation was wrong, as I demonstrated.

What in the world are you talking about?

So, let me get this straight; you're the subject matter expert, and I'm not?

I suppose it's possible that your lack of knowledge of the subject is preventing you from understanding the point. Your next statement makes it seem so....

Ok, if you go in a pet store and ask them to take you to the canine section, and you are taken to the feline section...will you accept this?

Probably not, because you'll recognize that the kind you asked for, isn't the same kind as where you were taken.

And to you, that's an example of how "kind" is used in biology and taxonomy?

I mean, it is really that simple...but when you want to flex your bio muscle and try to get all technical and bio-metri'ty and implement fantasies, that's when simple things become unnecessarily complicated.

I suppose to someone with your lack of knowledge, a lot of biology (even the basics) comes across as "all technical". But I find it hard to believe you really didn't expect a field of science to be technical and have specialized terminology.

Do you have that expectation for every field of science? Like if you tried to debate fluid dynamics, wouldn't you expect it to be a very technical subject that you should probably study a bit and learn the terminology of before you try and argue about it?

The reality is simple...the people with axes to grind are the ones taking simple concepts, and over- complicating it and making it convoluted.

Okay let's keep it simple.

We see evolution produce new species right now, with our own eyes. It's the only way we've ever seen new species arise. So when we see different species in the fossil record, it's reasonable to conclude that they also came about via evolution.

See how easy that is?

Um, you explained to me the theory of your fantasy, true.

I just don't share that fantasy.

I am learning.

I'm learning how ridiculous evolution is every time we discuss it.

Yet the only reasons you can give for that is because you've cherry picked from the views of a handful of creationists, and you've never seen a reptile give birth to a bird. You refuse to discuss the former and the latter is a silly straw man that I hope you've learned to stop repeating.

Is that it?

You say he is a liar.

No, I didn't just say "he's a liar", I watched one of his videos and identified some of the things he said that aren't true. IOW, I demonstrated that he's a liar, rather than just saying it.

..he is saying your whole religion (evolution) and Bibles (science textbooks) are liars.

And he lies while doing so. The only question now is whether or not that matters to you. Right now it looks like you don't care.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yet the Wiki article specifically says macroevolution is evolution at the species level. So now you don't "support" the evolution of new species, even though previously we agreed to it?

Make up your mind.

Yeah, I must of been high because I don't know what I was reading.

What in the world are you talking about?

I'm talking about what I said.

And to you, that's an example of how "kind" is used in biology and taxonomy?

"I mean, it is really that simple".

I suppose to someone with your lack of knowledge, a lot of biology (even the basics) comes across as "all technical". But I find it hard to believe you really didn't expect a field of science to be technical and have specialized terminology.

Nothing's changed..from the pet store to the wilderness.

Do you have that expectation for every field of science? Like if you tried to debate fluid dynamics, wouldn't you expect it to be a very technical subject that you should probably study a bit and learn the terminology of before you try and argue about it?

Any field of science can get slapped around if they are talking nonsense.

Okay let's keep it simple.

We see evolution produce new species right now, with our own eyes. It's the only way we've ever seen new species arise. So when we see different species in the fossil record, it's reasonable to conclude that they also came about via evolution.

See how easy that is?

Yeah, it is easy to fantasize.

Get me, Sydney Sweeney, and Scarlett Johansson in a room...that's my fantasy and it is easy to do.

I have my fantasies, too.

Yet the only reasons you can give for that is because you've cherry picked from the views of a handful of creationists, and you've never seen a reptile give birth to a bird. You refuse to discuss the former and the latter is a silly straw man that I hope you've learned to stop repeating.

"Neither suddenly nor gradually".

No, I didn't just say "he's a liar", I watched one of his videos and identified some of the things he said that aren't true. IOW, I demonstrated that he's a liar, rather than just saying it.

Trying to figure out what part of "Take it up with Hovind" you don't seem understand.

And he lies while doing so. The only question now is whether or not that matters to you. Right now it looks like you don't care.

1. It matters if it is true.

2. It's not true.

3. Therefore, it does not matter.

[Clownboat]

Why do you think chickens retain the ability to grow teeth

Because that ability has come to dominate their gene pool.

The ability for chickens to grow teeth is not dominating the gene pool of chickens though. I fit were, we would see it dominating.
The mutation is called talpid2 and it's recessive. A recessive gene is a section of genetic information with a low probability of being expressed in the individual. So why do chickens have this recessive gene is the question. Your explanation was wrong and didn't address this.

So until something valid is offered, the best explanation remains to be that chickens are descended from dinosaurs which is how they retain this gene (that their common descendent dinosaur had) to grow teeth.

I'm willing to amend my thinking on this if a better explanation is provided. I hope I explained it well enough as to why your claim that it dominates their gene pool is not factual.

and can you name even one feature of birds that is not found in some other dinosaurs?[/i]

I reject the premise that birds are dinosaurs..so to me, the question is loaded with an unproven (and in my opinion, false) assumption.

So, the question, is a loaded question.

Oh calm down, my questions did not even include a premise! However, in order to attempt to foster debate with you, let's pretend for a moment that it has been proven that birds are not dinosaurs. Now, can you name even one feature of birds that are not found in some other dinosaurs or will you note just how similar birds and dinosaurs are?

From there we can consider why birds and dinosaurs are so similar and why chickens retain the ability to grow teeth. When and why did chickens ever have teeth is a question that needs an explanation. What would you provide for me to consider?

For example, your god concept created them with teeth in the Garden of Eden and they lost the ability on the ark so that they wouldn't eat the other animals (I'm doing my best to help you out).

I really don't care if you accept what is being shown to you, but at least consider the implications. Refusing to think because you imagine a premise that doesn't exist and isn't there is just to stick your head in the sand. If you truly believe that evolution is false, you should not be afraid to consider things like this, but you avoided providing answers after many requests and then once you finally responded, your reason for not providing an answer was either a mistake on your part or a lie because no premise was even stated in the question.