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.
Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?
Moderator: Moderators
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3063
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3306 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
-
- Sage
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?
Post #31When 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.Clownboat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:59 amDo 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?Mae von H wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:25 amThat’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?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:09 am. Congratulations, you asked a few scientists if they trust each other. Therefore all scientists distrust each other. Wow.
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.I'm trying to figure out what you are complaining about and why.
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.
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?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?
Post #32So 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.
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.But science cannot answer all questions nor arrive at all truth.
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?
You are either just fully mistaken or a liar. Which is it?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'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.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 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.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
- Sage
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:31 am
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?
Post #33Again, 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?
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.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.
As I said, all you can do is throw mud.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.
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.)”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.
Reminds me of “seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear”….could add reading they do not read.”
Moving on….
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?
Post #34You 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?
For those type of questions, humans invented god concepts. God concepts are the mechanism humans use to answer the childish questions you alluded to.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.
Yes please and then a retraction once you are unable to provide this quote.Yes you did. You want the 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?
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - SocratesIt’s a sign of a lack of intellectual wherewithal characteristic of children.
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.As I said, all you can do is throw mud.
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.The rest I didn’t read...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb