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.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: I do not agree with any racist assumptions of YE creationists.

As I said, many YE creationists today do not agree with the founding assumptions of YE creationism. It was not my intent to accuse you of being a racist.

[marke]

Marke: I do not agree with any racist assumptions of YE creationists.

As I said, many YE creationists today do not agree with the founding assumptions of YE creationism. It was not my intent to accuse you of being a racist.

Marke: I know the earth is young but I do not believe human racist opinions no matter what their religious claims.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: I do not agree with any racist assumptions of YE creationists.

As I said, many YE creationists today do not agree with the founding assumptions of YE creationism. It was not my intent to accuse you of being a racist.

Marke: I know the earth is young but I do not believe human racist opinions no matter what their religious claims.

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

[marke]

Marke: I do not agree with any racist assumptions of YE creationists.

As I said, many YE creationists today do not agree with the founding assumptions of YE creationism. It was not my intent to accuse you of being a racist.

Marke: I know the earth is young but I do not believe human racist opinions no matter what their religious claims.

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

I know you've been told that, but absent any evidence to support that assumption, why would anyone believe it?

[marke]

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

I know you've been told that, but absent any evidence to support that assumption, why would anyone believe it?

Marke: I agree with the science that supports a young earth in spite of popular assumptions to the contrry.

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

I know you've been told that, but absent any evidence to support that assumption, why would anyone believe it?

Marke: I agree with the science that supports a young earth in spite of popular assumptions to the contrry.

But you still can't show us any evidence to support your assumptions? Why is that?

[marke]

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

I know you've been told that, but absent any evidence to support that assumption, why would anyone believe it?

Marke: I agree with the science that supports a young earth in spite of popular assumptions to the contrry.

But you still can't show us any evidence to support your assumptions? Why is that?

Marke: Scientific data can show the likelihood of a young earth but committed old earth specularists refuse to interpret the data that way.

AI Overview
Learn more
According to some creationist arguments, the low levels of helium in Earth's atmosphere suggest a young Earth, as the rate at which helium is produced from radioactive decay should result in a much higher concentration if the Earth were billions of years old; however, mainstream science rejects this claim, citing issues with the calculations used and the complex dynamics of atmospheric gas escape mechanisms.
Key points about this argument:

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

I know you've been told that, but absent any evidence to support that assumption, why would anyone believe it?

Marke: I agree with the science that supports a young earth in spite of popular assumptions to the contrry.

But you still can't show us any evidence to support your assumptions? Why is that?

Marke: Scientific data can show the likelihood of a young earth but committed old earth specularists refuse to interpret the data that way.

AI Overview
Learn more
According to some creationist arguments, the low levels of helium in Earth's atmosphere suggest a young Earth, as the rate at which helium is produced from radioactive decay should result in a much higher concentration if the Earth were billions of years old; however, mainstream science rejects this claim, citing issues with the calculations used and the complex dynamics of atmospheric gas escape mechanisms.
Key points about this argument:

Turns out, the escape of helium from the atmosphere is about what you'd expect, given the helium concentration in the atmosphere and the release of helium from the crust of the Earth:

Atmospheric helium is in dynamic equilibrium between the gain of helium diffusing from Earth's crust (as a product of radioactive decay) and losses of helium into space.
https://energy.utah.gov/wp-content/uplo ... Plan-1.pdf

I expect that YE creationists honestly didn't realize how the system works; this is probably an error, not an intentional dishonesty. I've seen similar arguments concerning the amount of salt in the oceans. There's a dynamic equilibrium with that, also.

[marke]

There is no evidence for the Earth being less than billions of years old. The Bible never makes such a claim.

Knowledgeable YE creationists have tried various ways to get around the evidence. "Apparent age", "virtual history", and "God is testing our faith" are common attempts. None of it really works.

The earth is far younger than evolutionists erroneously think.

I know you've been told that, but absent any evidence to support that assumption, why would anyone believe it?

Marke: I agree with the science that supports a young earth in spite of popular assumptions to the contrry.

But you still can't show us any evidence to support your assumptions? Why is that?

Marke: Scientific data can show the likelihood of a young earth but committed old earth specularists refuse to interpret the data that way.

AI Overview
Learn more
According to some creationist arguments, the low levels of helium in Earth's atmosphere suggest a young Earth, as the rate at which helium is produced from radioactive decay should result in a much higher concentration if the Earth were billions of years old; however, mainstream science rejects this claim, citing issues with the calculations used and the complex dynamics of atmospheric gas escape mechanisms.
Key points about this argument:

Turns out, the escape of helium from the atmosphere is about what you'd expect, given the helium concentration in the atmosphere and the release of helium from the crust of the Earth:

Atmospheric helium is in dynamic equilibrium between the gain of helium diffusing from Earth's crust (as a product of radioactive decay) and losses of helium into space.
https://energy.utah.gov/wp-content/uplo ... Plan-1.pdf

I expect that YE creationists honestly didn't realize how the system works; this is probably an error, not an intentional dishonesty. I've seen similar arguments concerning the amount of salt in the oceans. There's a dynamic equilibrium with that, also.

Marke: Of course there is always an alternative speculation to overturn obvious conclusions from scientific data that biased participants do not like. Since evolution kept regularly pushing back old age estimated timelines there came a point more than 100 year ago when evolutionists had to come up with a different source for the energy of the sun because gravitational contraction proposed by Lord Kelvin meant the sun was no older than 30 million years. The new theory was nuclear fusion which first emerged in 1920. There was a problem with the math and evidence, however, so theorists had to invent the neutrino in order to salvage scientific conservation of energy in the process.