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: I do not share the criticisms of God and the Bible common to unbelievers with attitudes.

With respect, that's not a criticism of either God or the Bible, but criticism of a particular exegetical method. Conflating God, the Bible, and Christianity writ large with peculiar theological positions is what leads to many misunderstandings.

Marke: Truth is inviolable and inerrant but human understandings are not.

[marke]

Well, let's take a a look...

Jesus’ genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

There have been various attempts to dodge this problem, but they all come back to the same issue. Can't both be literally true.

Both Mary and Joseph descended from David through different lines.[/b]

That excuse won't work. Both of these say they are the genealogies for Joseph, not Mary.

Marke: By claiming the Bible offers contradictory genealogies for Jesus you clearly rule out possible reasonable explanations and interpretations that are not contradictory.

Show us a reasonable explanation other than the obvious conclusion that they are not literal genealogies.

Marke: It is not uncommon for Biblical characters to be identified by more than one name. The two genealogies represent the lineages of two different parents, Joseph and Mary. There is a possibility that some names are left out of the lineages. And so forth.

No, those excuses won't work. They both purport to be of Joseph, not of Mary. And they go back to two different lines from the House of David. Nathan and Solomon were two different sons of David.

Marke: I do not share the criticisms of God and the Bible common to unbelievers with attitudes.

You aren't God and you aren't the Bible. I'm criticizing your attempt to force a literal interpretation on everything in the Bible. Instead of revising it to fit your desires, why not just accept it as it is?
[/quote]

Marke: God knows He did not contradict Himself in spite of what His critics wrongly assume or imagine.

[marke]

Marke: It is not uncommon for Biblical characters to be identified by more than one name. The two genealogies represent the lineages of two different parents, Joseph and Mary. There is a possibility that some names are left out of the lineages. And so forth.

That's hilarious.

"The Bible is inerrant and perfect...except when it isn't."

Marke: The Bible is inerrant and a closed book to those who do not properly seek God for understanding.

[The Barbarian]

God knows He did not contradict Himself in spite of what His critics wrongly assume or imagine.[/b]

Of course He didn't. It only appears so, when people try to force figurative verses into literal ones.

[marke]

God knows He did not contradict Himself in spite of what His critics wrongly assume or imagine.[/b]

Of course He didn't. It only appears so, when people try to force figurative verses into literal ones.

Marke: Humans don't determine what is literal and what is not literal. That is God's perogative.

[The Barbarian]

Humans don't determine what is literal and what is not literal. That is God's perogative.[/b]

You need to tell YE creationists that fact. They freely insert their own ideas into scripture.

[marke]

Humans don't determine what is literal and what is not literal. That is God's perogative.[/b]

You need to tell YE creationists that fact. They freely insert their own ideas into scripture.

Marke: Christians, like everyone else, have all sorts of ideas and I am happy to allow them to sort all those ideas out between themselves and God.

[The Barbarian]

Humans don't determine what is literal and what is not literal. That is God's perogative.[/b]

You need to tell YE creationists that fact. They freely insert their own ideas into scripture.

Marke: Christians, like everyone else, have all sorts of ideas and I am happy to allow them to sort all those ideas out between themselves and God.

Why not just accept it God's way?