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]

Since radiometric test results rely on unverifiable assumptions about decay rates, among other variables, radiometric test results will always be tentative or debatable.

Radiometric dating works. You simply are in denial and we all know why you deny it. I find your reason for denying it to be an insufficient reason.
Let's be honest though, you would believe in a flat earth to protect the religious beliefs you currently hold if such a thing was required.

AI Overview
Learn more
Radiometric dating of rocks
Yes, radiometric dating does work, and is considered a reliable method for determining the age of rocks and fossils, providing accurate age estimates for events dating back to the formation of Earth, relying on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes like uranium, potassium, and carbon; however, it's important to use the correct method depending on the age of the material and potential contamination issues.

[marke]

Since radiometric test results rely on unverifiable assumptions about decay rates, among other variables, radiometric test results will always be tentative or debatable.

Radiometric dating works. You simply are in denial and we all know why you deny it. I find your reason for denying it to be an insufficient reason.
Let's be honest though, you would believe in a flat earth to protect the religious beliefs you currently hold if such a thing was required.

AI Overview
Learn more
Radiometric dating of rocks
Yes, radiometric dating does work, and is considered a reliable method for determining the age of rocks and fossils, providing accurate age estimates for events dating back to the formation of Earth, relying on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes like uranium, potassium, and carbon; however, it's important to use the correct method depending on the age of the material and potential contamination issues.

Marke: Let me try to explain why I believe radiometric tests for extremely old ages are unreliable, using this backdrop info:

AI Overview
Learn more
When multiple radiometric tests on the same sample produce different results, the most accurate result is considered to be the average of the consistent, closely grouped results, with outliers being disregarded; this is because slight variations in sample preparation or measurement can occur, leading to occasional anomalous readings, while the majority of tests should provide a reliable age estimate if the methodology is sound.
Key points to remember:

1. Multiple tests done on the same sample typically give varying results, with some results being so diverse as to be labeled "outliers." If only one test is done and accepted then we may be well be ignorantly ccepoting an inaccurate result that should be referred to as outliers.
2. Biased researchers will always be tempted to claim any test result obtained is contaminated if they don't like the result.
3. For this reason, biased researchers who know what results they expect will not accept any results not meeting their expectations, regardless of whether they can prove contamination or not.

[The Barbarian]

Since radiometric test results rely on unverifiable assumptions about decay rates, among other variables, radiometric test results will always be tentative or debatable.

Since you asked Google AI, let's ask AI how trustworthy it is...
According to the Google spokesperson, in many cases when AI Overviews returns incorrect answers it's because there's not a lot of high-quality information available on the web to show for the query—or because the query most closely matches satirical sites or joke posts.

Hmmm... not so trustworthy, um?

Your AI source neglected isochrons, by which we can determine the initial state of the rock. Constant rate of nuclear decay is well-documented. I notice you didn't comment on the evidence I showed you for the reasons why radioactive decay remains constant.

If you can't even do the math, what makes you think you're right? I suppose AI might be helpful in some cases, but it's no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.

[marke]

Since radiometric test results rely on unverifiable assumptions about decay rates, among other variables, radiometric test results will always be tentative or debatable.

Since you asked Google AI, let's ask AI how trustworthy it is...
According to the Google spokesperson, in many cases when AI Overviews returns incorrect answers it's because there's not a lot of high-quality information available on the web to show for the query—or because the query most closely matches satirical sites or joke posts.

Hmmm... not so trustworthy, um?

Your AI source neglected isochrons, by which we can determine the initial state of the rock. Constant rate of nuclear decay is well-documented. I notice you didn't comment on the evidence I showed you for the reasons why radioactive decay remains constant.

If you can't even do the math, what makes you think you're right? I suppose AI might be helpful in some cases, but it's no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.

Marke: Isochron dating has its problems also.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-paper-spo ... idely.html
Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
January 31, 2017

Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique
by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University

[The Barbarian]

Since radiometric test results rely on unverifiable assumptions about decay rates, among other variables, radiometric test results will always be tentative or debatable.

Since you asked Google AI, let's ask AI how trustworthy it is...
According to the Google spokesperson, in many cases when AI Overviews returns incorrect answers it's because there's not a lot of high-quality information available on the web to show for the query—or because the query most closely matches satirical sites or joke posts.

Hmmm... not so trustworthy, um?

Your AI source neglected isochrons, by which we can determine the initial state of the rock. Constant rate of nuclear decay is well-documented. I notice you didn't comment on the evidence I showed you for the reasons why radioactive decay remains constant.

If you can't even do the math, what makes you think you're right? I suppose AI might be helpful in some cases, but it's no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.

Marke: Isochron dating has its problems also.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-paper-spo ... idely.html
Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
January 31, 2017

Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique
by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University

According to the actual paper, even very ancient rocks (which is where the errors would show up) would show errors that were tiny, but "not negligible."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/NT16-98

Such errors would give no comfort to YE creationists. If the world was 5.0 billion years old, rather than 5.4 billion years old, it causes no problems for evolutionary theory, but is an unsolvable problem for YE creationists. You've inadvertently cited a paper that decisively refutes your beliefs.

[marke]

Since radiometric test results rely on unverifiable assumptions about decay rates, among other variables, radiometric test results will always be tentative or debatable.

Since you asked Google AI, let's ask AI how trustworthy it is...
According to the Google spokesperson, in many cases when AI Overviews returns incorrect answers it's because there's not a lot of high-quality information available on the web to show for the query—or because the query most closely matches satirical sites or joke posts.

Hmmm... not so trustworthy, um?

Your AI source neglected isochrons, by which we can determine the initial state of the rock. Constant rate of nuclear decay is well-documented. I notice you didn't comment on the evidence I showed you for the reasons why radioactive decay remains constant.

If you can't even do the math, what makes you think you're right? I suppose AI might be helpful in some cases, but it's no substitute for knowing what one is talking about.

Marke: Isochron dating has its problems also.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-paper-spo ... idely.html
Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
January 31, 2017

Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique
by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University

According to the actual paper, even very ancient rocks (which is where the errors would show up) would show errors that were tiny, but "not negligible."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/NT16-98

Such errors would give no comfort to YE creationists. If the world was 5.0 billion years old, rather than 5.4 billion years old, it causes no problems for evolutionary theory, but is an unsolvable problem for YE creationists. You've inadvertently cited a paper that decisively refutes your beliefs.

Marke: Christians are not compelled to disbelieve God simply because unbelievers have built a dating scheme that seems to disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of the universe. The entire old age secular dating megalith is built on the false assumption that the universe did not exhibit signs of old age from the very beginning. Had rocks been decaying for millions of years from day one? No, they just looked like they had according to unbelievers' scientific assumptions.

[The Barbarian]

Christians are not compelled to disbelieve God simply because unbelievers have built a dating scheme that seems to disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of the universe.

Again, your error is to assume that God made some comments about the age of the universe. Why not just accept scripture His way?

The entire young Earth revisionist dating megalith is built on the false assumption that the universe was created with faked evidence of old age from the very beginning.

This belief depends on the idea that God is appallingly deceptive. And for a Christian God is truth. I accept it His way.

Why won't you?

[Clownboat]

Christians are not compelled to disbelieve God simply because unbelievers have built a dating scheme that seems to disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of the universe. The entire old age secular dating megalith is built on the false assumption that the universe did not exhibit signs of old age from the very beginning. Had rocks been decaying for millions of years from day one? No, they just looked like they had according to unbelievers' scientific assumptions.

You seem to have missed this (Post 595): "You've inadvertently cited a paper that decisively refutes your beliefs."

My words have been shown to be true (Post 591):
"Let's be honest though, you would believe in a flat earth to protect the religious beliefs you currently hold if such a thing was required."

[Clownboat]

Christians are not compelled to disbelieve God simply because unbelievers have built a dating scheme that seems to disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of the universe.

Again, your error is to assume that God made some comments about the age of the universe. Why not just accept scripture His way?

The entire young Earth revisionist dating megalith is built on the false assumption that the universe was created with faked evidence of old age from the very beginning.

This belief depends on the idea that God is appallingly deceptive. And for a Christian God is truth. I accept it His way.

Why won't you?

To the bold.
I wish marke would address this to let us know why they are so dead set on a young earth in the first place. Since the Bible doesn't mention the age of the earth, why do they pretend to know the age of the earth according to the Bible?

Perhaps marke will do an AI search to let us know his thoughts on the matter?

[marke]

Christians are not compelled to disbelieve God simply because unbelievers have built a dating scheme that seems to disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of the universe.

Again, your error is to assume that God made some comments about the age of the universe. Why not just accept scripture His way?

The entire young Earth revisionist dating megalith is built on the false assumption that the universe was created with faked evidence of old age from the very beginning.

This belief depends on the idea that God is appallingly deceptive. And for a Christian God is truth. I accept it His way.

Why won't you?

Marke: The Bible provides an accurate genealogy from Adam to Jesus and those records indicate a short time period from the creation to the present, contrary to the billions of years the unbelieving theorists imagine.