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.

[marke]

Marke: Collins did not work in Wuhan, he had a part in directing US funding into gain-of-function research at Wuhan.

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ab-theory/

What that quote didnt quite convey was that Garry and several of the papers other coauthors were themselves initially suspicious that SARS-CoV-2 may have emerged from a lab. They communicated their suspicions to Fauci, Collins and others in late January and early February 2020, and what ensued was a period of intense and confidential deliberation about the origin of the virus.

Unredacted records obtained by The Nation and The Intercept offer detailed insights into those confidential deliberations. The documents show that in the early days of the pandemic, Fauci and Collins took part in a series of e-mail exchanges and telephone calls in which several leading virologists expressed concern that SARS-CoV-2 looked potentially "engineered." The participants also contemplated the possibility that laboratory activities had inadvertently led to the creation and release of the virus. The conversations convey a sense of anxious urgency and included speculation about the specific types of laboratory techniques that might have caused the viruss emergence. After roughly a week of debate and data collection, one of the key figures involved in the deliberations characterized the focus of the groups work as follows: "to disprove any type of lab theory." Several of the scientists on the calls and e-mails then went on to write and publish "Proximal Origin." It became one of the best-read papers in the history of science.

Nothing in there about Dr. Collins lying about COVID or making millions from it.

Meanwhile the point remains. There are lots of Christians and Christian scientists who have no problem with evolution and are most definitely not "god-hating pagans". If you don't like Dr. Collins, then consider:

The American Scientific Affiliation https://network.asa3.org/page/ASAAbout

The Clergy Letter Project https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

Marke: Millions of humans including gullible Christians, have been duped into accepting Darwinian evolution assumptions and speculations that are only weakly supported by biased interpretations of data that do not prove evolution.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Millions of humans including gullible Christians, have been duped into accepting Darwinian evolution assumptions and speculations that are only weakly supported by biased interpretations of data that do not prove evolution.

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth and this is why evolution is a fact. Biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change, this is the theory of evolution that is open to being shown as false, but would have nothing to do with the fact that populations of animals do change.

That populations of animals change is a fact and that is what evolution is.
The theory of evolution is about the changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time and is the current best mechanism that explains the fact that populations change.

To say that populations of animals change don't change is demonstrably false, therefore evolution is a fact.
Feel free to show that the 'theory of evolution' isn't the best explanation to describe the fact of evolution if you can. I would love to hear a better explanation for all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record if you can come up with one.

But you MUST do better than just offering us empty claims or you will continue to not be taken seriously.

[marke]

Marke: Millions of humans including gullible Christians, have been duped into accepting Darwinian evolution assumptions and speculations that are only weakly supported by biased interpretations of data that do not prove evolution.

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth and this is why evolution is a fact. Biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change, this is the theory of evolution that is open to being shown as false, but would have nothing to do with the fact that populations of animals do change.

Marke: Fact: Organisms change. Unproven highly debatable theory: Darwinian evolution is how humans evolved from animals.

That populations of animals change is a fact and that is what evolution is.
The theory of evolution is about the changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time and is the current best mechanism that explains the fact that populations change.

Marke: Just because organisms change and adapt is no proof that evolution occurred and using the fact of changes that are not Darwinian macroevolutioin to promote the idea that Darwinian macroevolution occurred is stupid and dishonest.

To say that populations of animals change don't change is demonstrably false, therefore evolution is a fact.
Feel free to show that the 'theory of evolution' isn't the best explanation to describe the fact of evolution if you can. I would love to hear a better explanation for all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record if you can come up with one.

But you MUST do better than just offering us empty claims or you will continue to not be taken seriously.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Millions of humans including gullible Christians, have been duped into accepting Darwinian evolution assumptions and speculations that are only weakly supported by biased interpretations of data that do not prove evolution.

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth and this is why evolution is a fact. Biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change, this is the theory of evolution that is open to being shown as false, but would have nothing to do with the fact that populations of animals do change.

Marke: Fact: Organisms change. Unproven highly debatable theory: Darwinian evolution is how humans evolved from animals.

That populations of animals change is a fact and that is what evolution is.
The theory of evolution is about the changes in the frequency of alleles within a population over time and is the current best mechanism that explains the fact that populations change.

Marke: Just because organisms change and adapt is no proof that evolution occurred and using the fact of changes that are not Darwinian macroevolutioin to promote the idea that Darwinian macroevolution occurred is stupid and dishonest.

To say that populations of animals change don't change is demonstrably false, therefore evolution is a fact.
Feel free to show that the 'theory of evolution' isn't the best explanation to describe the fact of evolution if you can. I would love to hear a better explanation for all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record if you can come up with one.

But you MUST do better than just offering us empty claims or you will continue to not be taken seriously.

The readers will decide as far as which of us comes across as more credible. The one that can figure out the quoting process and supplies evidence for their claims or the other...
Be well.

[Jose Fly]

Marke: Millions of humans including gullible Christians, have been duped into accepting Darwinian evolution assumptions and speculations that are only weakly supported by biased interpretations of data that do not prove evolution.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go online and say anything. Doesn't make it true though.

[marke]

Marke: Millions of humans including gullible Christians, have been duped into accepting Darwinian evolution assumptions and speculations that are only weakly supported by biased interpretations of data that do not prove evolution.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go online and say anything. Doesn't make it true though.

Marke: You prove that any sort of stupid unscientific claim may be made by anyone claiming to be an expert.

[Jose Fly]

Marke: You prove that any sort of stupid unscientific claim may be made by anyone claiming to be an expert.

No, I proved that some random person on the internet claiming something doesn't make that claim true.

You saying evolution is only weakly supported is the same as me saying the moon is made of cheese.

Or do you not understand the difference between saying something is so and demonstrating it to be so?

[EYR]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

There has never been a sinlge verifiable example of evolution discovered.

Obviously lots of creatures have been bred out to the limits of their genes - especially dogs.

But dogs is always dogs and other dogs recognise them as dogs and if mated will produce something similar to either parent - or perhaps to a lucky mongrel ten generations back on either one's side.

Difflugs has obviously chosen to be a slave to Satan and won't know his error until Jesus returns to destroy him.

[EYR]

If evolution was true we would all be 7 feet tall, slim, attractive and supremely intelligent.

The posts on this forum proves that evolution is Satan's joke.

[marke]

Marke: You prove that any sort of stupid unscientific claim may be made by anyone claiming to be an expert.

No, I proved that some random person on the internet claiming something doesn't make that claim true.

You saying evolution is only weakly supported is the same as me saying the moon is made of cheese.

Or do you not understand the difference between saying something is so and demonstrating it to be so?

Marke: Every purported 'scientific' claim made by evolutionists in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial was later roundly refuted by better understandings of science. Likewise, every 'scientific' claim made by global warming prophets has been thoroughly debunked as well. Furthermore, every claim made by experts and government-supported witnesses who claimed the Covid-19 virus emerged from a wet market and not from a lab has also been thoroughly debunked. We could go on listing 'scientific' narratives that were thoroughly debunked after closer investigations.