Overwhelming Evidence? Part 1
Updated: Jun 27, 2020
Humanists often claim that there is “overwhelming evidence” or “overwhelming data” to support their belief in evolution. I wanted to demonstrate to the humanists on the “Friendly Atheist” Facebook page that they actually do not have any shred of observational evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. I posed one simple question for the humanists, and although up to ten of them joined the discussion, not a single one of them was able to provide an adequate answer. Toward the end of the debate, I opened up about my motivation, and I urged them to consider the deeper reasons why they are rejecting the God of the Bible.
Since this was a longer debate, I will split it up into four separate blog posts. Humanist RS commented on a post by the page owner, and claimed that there is “overwhelming data” to support evolution. I replied to RS’s comment, and humanists SM, JW, and RF (names are abbreviated for identity protection) join the discussion right away. The other humanists join later on. Below is Part 1 of the “Overwhelming Evidence” debate.
Although we don't "believe" in evolution... we accept the peer reviewed, overwhelming data who supports it! And if facts change, we are open to evaluate and change with it!
RS, can you provide an example of observational evidence for biological evolution? In other words, can you provide an observable example of an organism that added brand new genetic information and functionality, rather than a distortion of existing genetic information?
Kevin, How about taking a Biology 101 class?
So, you say we all mutate and not evolve?
Cause is clearly documented, though religious people DO NOT accept evidence unless it fits their "beliefs"
Kevin, How about a certain bacteria that developed the ability to devour nylon?
SM, Don't you love it when a religitard wants to "prove" wrong science, they end up looking like... Oh, well, religitards! LOL!
I don't know what you're talking about. I regularly pray to evolution.
RS, so, “mutate” or “evolve”: what do you say? Can you answer my original question? Can you provide an observable example? SM, I assume you are referring to Arthrobacter sp. K172. This bacteria gained the ability to digest byproducts of nylon manufacture (i.e. wastewater). The bacteria underwent a point mutation of a particular enzyme, EII. The bacteria already possesses this particular enzyme, and its normal function breaks down a substance that is chemically similar to nylon. The mutation slightly alters EII giving it the ability to break down nylon. This is just another example of the alteration of already-existing genetic information. Do you have any better examples?
Sorry, Kevin, but we can't provide examples of your strawman misrepresentation of evolution. Check out talkorigins.org for more information about evolution. But in brief, evolution is the change of traits in a population over time. This can be due to mutation, if the mutation proves beneficial. This can be due to a shift in the balance of an already existing variation among the population, if one variation becomes more beneficial due to a change in the environment.
I haven’t misrepresented evolution, and your brief explanation does not answer my question. If your explanation is true, and if your worldview is based on “fact” instead of faith, then please try to answer my original question in this thread.
I will share Part 2 of the “Overwhelming Evidence” debate in the next blog post. In the meantime, if you are curious to learn more about nylon-eating bacteria, and how this does not support molecules-to-man evolution, I recommend the following resources:
For a brief overview,
Purdom, Dr. Georgia. 2012. Nylon-eating Bacteria Again. March 1. https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/03/01/nylon-eating-bacteria-again/.
For the technical details,
Truman, Royal. 2015. "Nylon-eating Bacteria: Part 1--Discovery and Significance." Journal of Creation 29 (1): 95-102. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_95-102.pdf.