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]

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.

Well, your last few posts indicate to me that we've probably hit the end of our exchange. We're kinda going in circles with you now just going into "Nuh uh" mode, which doesn't interest me, so I'll wrap up with one suggestion.

You really, really need to ditch Kent Hovind.

See, I honestly don't care if you deny evolution, common descent, or anything else. It truly makes no difference to me. But if you're going to try and jump into evolution/creationism debates online, you should avoid referring to, citing, or even naming Hovind in any way. From my side of the issue, once someone cites Hovind they immediately strip themselves of all credibility...that's how bad he is.

He truly is a convicted felon, tax cheat, conspiracy theorist, wife abuser (it's on tape and it's awful), and habitual liar. And not only that, his lies are quite bizarre and trivially easy to rebut (as I did earlier).

So if you want to advocate creationism in places like this, do yourself a favor and utilize creationists other than Hovind so that you'll be taken at least somewhat seriously. Because as soon as you mention Hovind, I guarantee everyone else immediately rolls their eyes and laughs at you.

The choice is yours.

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, your last few posts indicate to me that we've probably hit the end of our exchange.

That's what I got out of it.

We're kinda going in circles with you now just going into "Nuh uh" mode, which doesn't interest me, so I'll wrap up with one suggestion.

Yeah, and for every "Nuh uh" in that circle, there is an "Uh Huh" in there too, on your end..which doesn't interest me, either.

So yeah, put it to bed.

You really, really need to ditch Kent Hovind.

I'll do that, once you ditch the theory of evolution.

Deal?

See, I honestly don't care if you deny evolution, common descent, or anything else.

Oh, well you fooled me.

If your actions on here is based on someone who doesn't care, I don't even wanna know what you are capable of if you actually cared.

It truly makes no difference to me. But if you're going to try and jump into evolution/creationism debates online, you should avoid referring to, citing, or even naming Hovind in any way. From my side of the issue, once someone cites Hovind they immediately strip themselves of all credibility...that's how bad he is.

I could care less about what you think of Hovind.

Seriously.

He truly is a convicted felon, tax cheat, conspiracy theorist, wife abuser (it's on tape and it's awful), and habitual liar.

It is what it is.

And not only that, his lies are quite bizarre and trivially easy to rebut (as I did earlier).

Rebut it to his face.

So if you want to advocate creationism in places like this, do yourself a favor and utilize creationists other than Hovind so that you'll be taken at least somewhat seriously. Because as soon as you mention Hovind, I guarantee everyone else immediately rolls their eyes and laughs at you.
The choice is yours.

If you want eternal life and to be spared of eternal damnation, do yourself a favor and accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

Because as soon as you mention evolution, I guarantee the Creator of the universe looks at you with anger, by trading what he did with his words and with his own hands, and fabricating it with a fanciful, naturalistic voodoo.

And this is no laughing matter.

The choice is yours.

[The Barbarian]

Because as soon as you mention evolution, I guarantee the Creator of the universe looks at you with anger, by trading what he did with his words and with his own hands, and fabricating it with a fanciful, naturalistic voodoo.

He doesn't care what you think about evolution. It's not how He will judge you. Creationists are no less Christian than any other, unless they make their new beliefs into an idol and insist that God will getcha if you don't worship it, too.

That idol is what turns away many people who might otherwise come to Him, and it destroys the faith of many who were taught to worship the idol.

And this is no laughing matter.

[SiNcE_1985]

He doesn't care what you think about evolution. It's not how He will judge you. Creationists are no less Christian than any other, unless they make their new beliefs into an idol and insist that God will getcha if you don't worship it, too.

That idol is what turns away many people who might otherwise come to Him, and it destroys the faith of many who were taught to worship the idol.

And this is no laughing matter.

That's the point, Jose doesn't accept Christ.

It's one thing to say God used evolution, and it's another thing to say evolution occurred without God...and this is the position that I'm attacking.

And I've made that point crystal clear, but you guys have been dismissive because the urge/drive is so intense to push evolution, that you're ignoring anything else.

[The Barbarian]

He doesn't care what you think about evolution. It's not how He will judge you. Creationists are no less Christian than any other, unless they make their new beliefs into an idol and insist that God will getcha if you don't worship it, too.

That idol is what turns away many people who might otherwise come to Him, and it destroys the faith of many who were taught to worship the idol.

And this is no laughing matter.

That's the point, Jose doesn't accept Christ.

And those who reject the science because it doesn't fit some man-made doctrine, make it harder for people to accept Christ.

It's one thing to say God used evolution, and it's another thing to say evolution occurred without God...and this is the position that I'm attacking.

And here's the key. Just as Newton could present his theory of gravitation without God in it while still believing in God, so did Darwin present his theory of evolution without God in it while still assuming that God created the first living things.

Science is like that. It's too weak a method to include the supernatural. All I'm saying is that the record clearly shows that attacking evolution on religious grounds is a very efficient way of keeping people from coming to Jesus, and often causes others to lose their faith.

I'm an apostolic Christian, so I'm aware that Jose is not necessarily going to hell for not believing. Because of this, I don't have any burning need to convert him.

Here's what works. "See how they love each other." When unbelievers see that in the behavior of Christians, they are much more inclined to come and take a look.
https://www.morningsidecommunitychurch. ... ter-series

[SiNcE_1985]

And those who reject the science because it doesn't fit some man-made doctrine, make it harder for people to accept Christ.

And here's the key. Just as Newton could present his theory of gravitation without God in it while still believing in God, so did Darwin present his theory of evolution without God in it while still assuming that God created the first living things.

Anyone can assume anything.

Your theory of evolution contradicts scripture, for reasons I've already given.

You've yet to adequately address this, all while still maintaining your position, which is wild.

Science is like that. It's too weak a method to include the supernatural. All I'm saying is that the record clearly shows that attacking evolution on religious grounds is a very efficient way of keeping people from coming to Jesus, and often causes others to lose their faith.

Well again, for the umpteenth time, I made the point clear, that belief in evolution does not effect the Gospel...it just means that your interpretation of Gen 1 is flawed, which it is.

So how this^ is keeping people from coming to Jesus, you tell me.

I'm an apostolic Christian, so I'm aware that Jose is not necessarily going to hell for not believing. Because of this, I don't have any burning need to convert him.

You convert him based on the mere fact that he ain't currently converted.

I don't recall any Christian creed espousing on a belief in evolution...nor new testament.

As far I can tell, you're the only one that is doing such.

It is indeed a false teaching and you are borderline on some heresy stuff.

Here's what works. "See how they love each other." When unbelievers see that in the behavior of Christians, they are much more inclined to come and take a look.
https://www.morningsidecommunitychurch. ... ter-series

Smh.

[Difflugia]

So how this^ is keeping people from coming to Jesus, you tell me.

Augustine of Hippo told you about 1600 years ago in his Literal Commentary on Genesis Book 1, Chapter 19:

It frequently happens that on questions relating to the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, the motion and rotation of the stars, or their magnitude and distance from each other, the calculation of the eclipses of sun and moon, the periods of years and seasons, the properties of animals, plants, stones and the like, a man who is not a Christian possesses information grounded on undoubted reason or on experience. Now it is a most shameful and pernicious thing, and greatly to be avoided, that a Christian discoursing on such matters, according to the Christian Scriptures, should rave to that extent that an unbeliever noticing how utterly he wanders from the truth should with difficulty be able to suppress his laughter. And what is most annoying is, not that the man brings ridicule upon himself by his foolish ravings, but that outsiders are led thereby to suppose that these are the opinions of our sacred writers, whom in consequence they despise and reject as ignorant persons, to the great detriment of those for whose salvation we labour. For when unbelievers find a Christian to be in error regarding matters with which they are perfectly well acquainted, and hear him backing up his errors by the authority of our Holy Books, how is it possible for them to give credence to what these same books state concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, after they have been led to suppose that these books contain false statements concerning matters which they themselves have tested by experience or can prove by undeniable arguments? The annoyance and grief which these rash and presumptuous Christians cause to thoughtful brethren is greater than can be expressed.

English translation from "The Days of Creation".

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #467]

Um, the question was, how am I keeping people from Christ by rejecting God's hand in evolution, when I stated that a belief in evolution doesn't effect the Gospel?

Not sure how this question was addressed, even after I read St. Augustine's quote 3-4 times.

You're adding to the unnecessary convolution, Diff.

[The Barbarian]

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #467]
Um, the question was, how am I keeping people from Christ by rejecting God's hand in evolution, when I stated that a belief in evolution doesn't effect the Gospel?
Not sure how this question was addressed, even after I read St. Augustine's quote 3-4 times.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]."

You're right; it doesn't affect the Gospel. YE creationists are not outside the Church, unless they insist that YE creationism is a required belief for Christians. But as St. Augustine points out, it can do all sorts of damage to faith, as Glenn Morton pointed out in his experience as a YE creationist trying to reconcile his beliefs with the reality he faced as a geologist.