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.

[Clownboat]

That populations of animals do change over time is in fact a fact and this is evolution and has been observed.
You only deny this, which is not impressive in a debate setting.

Marke: I know species diversify but I also know they do not morph into other totally different species like dogs evolving into turtles or any of so many other preposterous types of Darwinian evolution nonsense.

Whoopsies! You forgot to address how evolution is a fact and how it has been observed. You continue to remain unimpressive (in this debate setting).

This is natural selection and can be a mechanism that drives the evolution of animals. Thanks for pointing out that mechanism and real world examples of how it causes changes.

Marke: This 'might' evolve or that 'may' contribute to evolution but no Darwinian macroevolution has ever been observed like birds evolving into dinosaurs or apes evolving into secular university professors.

You once again fail to address what said, but at least you got to fire off your shot against university professors. I hope you feel better getting that off your chest.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #547]

but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis),


pay attention to what you post?

You can't be serious. Are you actually arguing that seeing a population evolve a new trait is not evidence that populations evolve?

Or is this a case where no matter what anyone posts to you, your reply will always effectively be "Nuh uh"?

[Jose Fly]

Marke: That is utterly ridiculous lying nonsense.

Oh, so you do understand how simply saying something doesn't make it so.

Now the question becomes whether or not you are willing to apply that to your own posts and claims.

[otseng]

Wow, more disingenuousness. You just can't help yourself, can't you?

Shame on you, for the continuous mixing of Satan's lie with God's truth.

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

But, any answer I give will only breed more fantasy...more cheap tickets to Fantasy Island...more opportunity for you to spew your "locked and loaded" biobabble.

Moderator Warning



These responses would be considered uncivil and in violation of the rules.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

Marke: Like so many other ideas dreamed up by the left, the assumption that humans emerged from initial black-African human-apes and are steadily getting smarter is disproven by the clear fact that educated democrats in the US are getting stupider.[/b]

Moderator Comment

Please do not denigrate groups of people.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[marke]

That populations of animals do change over time is in fact a fact and this is evolution and has been observed.

Marke: I again admit that minor changes and adaptations do occur and that evolutionists dishonestly attempt to claim that minor changes and adaptations prove major Darwinian speciation changes that have never occurred.

You only deny this, which is not impressive in a debate setting.

Marke: I know species diversify but I also know they do not morph into other totally different species like dogs evolving into turtles or any of so many other preposterous types of Darwinian evolution nonsense.

Whoopsies! You forgot to address how evolution is a fact and how it has been observed. You continue to remain unimpressive (in this debate setting).

This is natural selection and can be a mechanism that drives the evolution of animals. Thanks for pointing out that mechanism and real world examples of how it causes changes.

Marke: This 'might' evolve or that 'may' contribute to evolution but no Darwinian macroevolution has ever been observed like birds evolving into dinosaurs or apes evolving into secular university professors.

You once again fail to address what said, but at least you got to fire off your shot against university professors. I hope you feel better getting that off your chest.

[marke]

Marke: Like so many other ideas dreamed up by the left, the assumption that humans emerged from initial black-African human-apes and are steadily getting smarter is disproven by the clear fact that educated democrats in the US are getting stupider.[/b]

Moderator Comment

Please do not denigrate groups of people.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Marke: Darwin and early evolutionists were racists. Darwin believed the first humans to emerge from animals were blacks in Africa who later evolved into higher or more civilized races. Early American scientific and business leaders showcased African pygmies in zoos with monkeys to illustrate what they believed were exampoles of early evolution of the human race. Madison Grant was a celebrated early American legal and scientific racist whose book The Passing of the Great Race was praised by Hitler as his bible.

Madison Grant (November 19, 1865 May 30, 1937) was an American lawyer, zoologist, anthropologist, and writer known for his work as a conservationist, eugenicist, and advocate of scientific racism. Grant is less noted for his far-reaching achievements in conservation than for his pseudoscientific advocacy of Nordicism, a form of racism which views the "Nordic race" as superior.[1][2]

[otseng]

[Replying to marke in post #557]

Moderator Comment

16. Appeals, challenges, or any response to comments/warnings made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[firefly]

the question isn't really: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution? but should be rephrased as 'Do patterns of pushing nonviable evolution show low IQ?'

NorthropGrumman of all companies got involved and printed this astoundingly childish 'evidence for evolution' ; https://now.northropgrumman.com/5-anima ... d-recently.

Any honest person with half a brain can see that the 5 cases quoted merely prove that creatures can develop characterists under stress that had no previous use.

Weightllifters can grow super muscles once they start training and as surely lose them whene they stop training - but no evolution is involved.

[Clownboat]

the question isn't really: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution? but should be rephrased as 'Do patterns of pushing nonviable evolution show low IQ?'

I can see how changing the question would make it much easier for a person to then avoid it, but the question remains.

NorthropGrumman of all companies got involved and printed this astoundingly childish 'evidence for evolution' ; https://now.northropgrumman.com/5-anima ... d-recently.

Evolution (that populations change) is a fact no matter if a person finds something printed to be childish, so I wonder why these arguments for evolution were provided? What you have done is provided arguments for evolution and then just wrote them off as being childish. Why?

Any honest person with half a brain can see that the 5 cases quoted merely prove that creatures can develop characterists under stress that had no previous use.

So why did you provide them?

Weightllifters can grow super muscles once they start training and as surely lose them whene they stop training - but no evolution is involved.

You got that right. This surely is not the change of allele frequency within a population, which is what evolution is. Why did you bring up something that isn't evolution?