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.

[Mae von H]

. Congratulations, you asked a few scientists if they trust each other. Therefore all scientists distrust each other. Wow.

That’s not what I said. If you cannot refrain from misrepresenting what I said, discussion on this point is useless. Or alternatively, if your understanding of science is so weak that you think TENDENCIES or even POSSIBILITIES mean EVERYONE, then I definitely know more about science than you do. Shall I post links on the increasing cases of scientific fraud? Will that suffice as evidence? Don’t you want to find out if there’s an epidemic of scientific fraud? The head of Stanford had to step down because academic fraud was uncovered. He’s not the only one. Do you think it’s just me making this up rather than admit it’s true?

Do you acknowledge that the scientific method is the best method humans have at arriving at truths, or do you argue that there is a better method humans should be using in place of the scientific method?

When it comes to natural processes and understanding them, yes. I’ve demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to “if some, therefore all” which is anything but the scientific method. But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.

I'm trying to figure out what you are complaining about and why.

Easy. I reported that there’s a plague of dishonesty in science and you said I said all scientists are dishonest, which I never said. Stop doing that.

It's like acknowledging that the ThrustSSC is the fastest land vehicle, but it just isn't fast enough. Such a complaint would seem misplaced don't you think?

Huh? There’s no correlation in that example. No one is saying anything close to that. Besides, speed or faster is NOT a moral issue.

[Clownboat]

When it comes to natural processes and understanding them, yes.

So it is the best that we have and you're still complaining about it? This is odd to me. If you pointed to a better mechanism, which you cannot, at least then your complaints would seem valid.

I’ve demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to “if some, therefore all” which is anything but the scientific method.

I have done no such thing. The amount of 'wrong' in you is amazing.

But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.

No one claimed that this method could do these things. You're complaining about the best we that have and now pointing out that the best we have cannot answer all questions.
The scientific method got us to the moon and you bring up how it cannot answer all truth. Your complaints are really strange and leave me scratching my head trying to figure out why you are whining about having the best mechanism available to you. Do you not hear yourself?

Easy. I reported that there’s a plague of dishonesty in science and you said I said all scientists are dishonest, which I never said. Stop doing that.

You are either just fully mistaken or a liar. Which is it?

Huh? There’s no correlation in that example. No one is saying anything close to that. Besides, speed or faster is NOT a moral issue.

You're complaining about the best that we have. That's like whining that you have access to the fastest car, but it just isn't good enough for you. The scientific method is the fastest car, even you agree, yet your still complaining about it.

You trying to maintain your religious belief is what drives this as there as there is no logic in your complaints. Come up with a better method and THEN your complaints will not be misplaced. Complaining about the best we have in order to maintain a previously held belief is not a valid method for arriving at truths.

[Mae von H]

When it comes to natural processes and understanding them, yes.

So it is the best that we have and you're still complaining about it? This is odd to me. If you pointed to a better mechanism, which you cannot, at least then your complaints would seem valid.

Again, that’s NOT what I said. Why do you guys have trouble repeating what I say? Science can ONLY help us understand the natural world. It cannot address the questions children ask that are NOT within the natural world.

I’ve demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to “if some, therefore all” which is anything but the scientific method.

I have done no such thing. The amount of 'wrong' in you is amazing. [/quote] Yes you did. You want the quote?

But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.

No one claimed that this method could do these things. You're complaining about the best we that have and now pointing out that the best we have cannot answer all questions.

1. No where did I complain. Can you please try to refrain from these false accusations?
2. Do you at least acknowledge that science is not the best way to ascertain the answer to some questions?

The scientific method got us to the moon and you bring up how it cannot answer all truth. Your complaints are really strange and leave me scratching my head trying to figure out why you are whining about having the best mechanism available to you. Do you not hear yourself?

I repeat. I am not complaining but you are. You probably don’t realize the only arrow in your quiver is the ad hominem. As society slips further away from God, the personal attacks get more common. It’s a sign of a lack of intellectual wherewithal characteristic of children.

Easy. I reported that there’s a plague of dishonesty in science and you said I said all scientists are dishonest, which I never said. Stop doing that.

You are either just fully mistaken or a liar. Which is it?

As I said, all you can do is throw mud.

Huh? There’s no correlation in that example. No one is saying anything close to that. Besides, speed or faster is NOT a moral issue.

You're complaining about the best that we have. That's like whining that you have access to the fastest car, but it just isn't good enough for you. The scientific method is the fastest car, even you agree, yet your still complaining about it.

You trying to maintain your religious belief is what drives this as there as there is no logic in your complaints. Come up with a better method and THEN your complaints will not be misplaced. Complaining about the best we have in order to maintain a previously held belief is not a valid method for arriving at truths.

The rest I didn’t read because you’ve decided it’s easier to lob ad hominems than address the matter. You prefer “you are (insert in complimentary and untrue adjective.)”

Reminds me of “seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear”….could add reading they do not read.”
Moving on….

[Clownboat]

Science can ONLY help us understand the natural world.

You forgot the physical world. Other than those two worlds, what other world do you offer for our consideration and how do you know about this world?

It cannot address the questions children ask that are NOT within the natural world.

For those type of questions, humans invented god concepts. God concepts are the mechanism humans use to answer the childish questions you alluded to.

I’ve demonstrated I use this whereas you jumped to “if some, therefore all” which is anything but the scientific method.

Yes you did. You want the quote?

Yes please and then a retraction once you are unable to provide this quote.

As society slips further away from God, the personal attacks get more common.

As long as we are no longer using god concepts to commit genocide and to steal virgin girls for example, society is better of without god concepts to justify such atrocities. A few personal attacks pale in comparison. Surely you agree?

It’s a sign of a lack of intellectual wherewithal characteristic of children.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

As I said, all you can do is throw mud.

You failed to provide the quote where I did what you accused. The mud is in your face, where it belongs, but you can only blame yourself.

The rest I didn’t read...

You would do well to run. If only your posts suggested that a god concept of sorts was helping you. Now that would at least be evidence of sorts. Sadly, you leveled false claims against me, offered slander and then ran away.