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.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Difflugia

You say - "This debate question is a response to..."

No it is not. This is a smarmy homage to elitism. It has nothing to do with any contribution of mine on this forum except the simple request to set up a thread to pitch science against theistic kick back.
Attempt something relevant to that or alternatively play with your own ball on your own pitch.
Thanks!

[Masterblaster]

Hello Difflugia

A simple question for you.

You craftily placed this in the Science and Religion Section. Where is the religion in this.?

More importantly, why is the Christianity and Apologetics Section littered with ' high Science' ?
Shouldn't it be here, where nobody will see it?

This is a prime example of the phenomena.
How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?
We were served with platefuls of this no sense high science ,quasi -theological gobblygook.

"The point is not whether a nothing that can produce virtual particles is something or nor not, it is that whatever 'Something' it is, it does not need anything to create it"

....and on, and on, and on!

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Let us get a semblance of reasonable perspective here...
Science went on a journey of discovery, they simultaneously went up and down, in and out.

They discovered that there are approximately 2 Trillion galaxies in the visible Universe. You can find that truth in the OT. Did this calm their enthusiasm in any way. Not a jot

Last week they were trying to land a bin on the moon. Apart from breaking one of its legs it was a resounding success, and the first of many. In the same week , highly sophisticated weaponry was blowing the ....out of Rafah.

It is the same story when science went in.
Now we have string theory being used to extrapolate the beginnings of everything. The Big Bang is yesterday's anti-God soundbite.

We need to get a grip of this nonsense, before it is too late. This is part of the Pantheon of false Gods in our modern world as it dances to a tune with Money, Folly and Greed.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Difflugia

Here is a sprinkle of religion for your science thread.

Deuteronomy 4
"And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven"

This seems unnecessarily harsh. It is not as if we would start sticking flags or landing bins on a celestial body, or anything of the sort.

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Let us come back down to earth.
Science Money, Folly and Greed encapsulated in N.A.S.A.
Does anyone detect a rotten fish here?
Follow the whiff!


Who was the 13th NASA administrator?

Jim Bridenstine was nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the 13th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As administrator, he has led NASA in advancing American aeronautic, science, and space exploration objectives since April 23, 2018.

HOMEPAGE

POLITICS

How Trump’s NASA Nominee Used a Nonprofit He Ran to Benefit Himself

SELF-DEALING

Nick Schwellenbach

Adam Zagorin

Published Apr. 18, 2018 10:37AM EDT 

EXCLUSIVE



Tom Williams/Getty

Rep. James Bridenstine (R-Okla.) is a former Navy pilot with virtually no management experience in any large organization. But the Oklahoma Republican has been tapped by President Donald Trump to take over the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a federal agency with a budget of $18.5 billion, 18,000 federal workers, and over 60,000 contract employees.

For this lack of technical experience—along with a skepticism of climate change and opposition to LGBT rights — Bridenstine has faced sharp criticism on the Hill. But another issue may soon end up complicating his nomination

Bridenstine, whose bid to be NASA’s next leader was advanced this week by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Mike Garcia
"NASA’s been responsible,” he said. “We’re getting results. … Very important stuff NASA is doing, we’re getting our bang for our buck out of them.” 

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory is located at the California Institute of Technology, not far from Garcia’s district, where top aerospace contractors Northrop Grumman Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. have facilities. Garcia’s former employer, Raytheon Technologies Corp., is also a major NASA contractor. "


Etc

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #2]

This is a smarmy homage to elitism.

Moderator Comment

Please respond to the OP without disparaging comments on the topic posed . You've made several thread posts that are unrelated to the OP topic that are essentially rants about unrelated issues. Please stay on topic, review the forum Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics..

[Difflugia]

Hello Difflugia

You say - "This debate question is a response to..."

No it is not. This is a smarmy homage to elitism.

Elitism, education, whatever.

It has nothing to do with any contribution of mine on this forum except the simple request to set up a thread to pitch science against theistic kick back.
Attempt something relevant to that or alternatively play with your own ball on your own pitch.
Thanks!

This is exactly what we were discussing in the other thread. You claimed that you were somehow challenging evolution, but didn't engage with the actual science. This is the science.

You asked me to "set it up." If you don't like how I "set it up," ask a different question.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Apparently the subject of this thread is the same as this one.

Why are Some Christians Upset that Other Theists Accept Darwin?

Sure it is!

Well Done!

[Difflugia]

Hello

Apparently the subject of this thread is the same as this one.

Why are Some Christians Upset that Other Theists Accept Darwin?

Sure it is!

Well Done!

It's not, but go ahead and answer in the other thread if you think it is. In that thread, you said:

I would love to more specifically engage with our ' grievances ' within a more defined and confined space.

My "grievance" is that you're trying to critique the science without actually engaging the methodology or the data. That's what this thread is about.