If you have not already, make sure to read Part 1 before continuing. As demonstrated in Part 2 of the "Overwhelming Evidence" debate, the humanists are still struggling to answer my original question with observable evidence of an organism gaining new genetic information and functionality/complexity. After refuting SM’s claim that nylon-eating bacteria is an observable example, he never responded back. RS and RF continue the discussion, while GW jumps in on the debate. Below is Part 2.
RS
Why you want facts, when your Cognitive Dissonance will dismiss it? Again, there is overwhelming evidence and you can accept it or not! Faith? Faith is static and if you where born in Saudi Arabia, probably be praying Allah and with lots of goats! There us thus thing called research... use it! I did, but discuss findings with open minded people! Religious trollers? Not in my lists now... now go back to rest, it's SIN TO WORK ON SABBATH! [lauging emoji]
Me:
RS, you claim that there is “overwhelming evidence.” If so, then please demonstrate this by answering my original question. If you can’t answer the question, then perhaps you should consider that your belief in evolution isn’t truly based on “data.” Maybe you should deeply consider the real reasons why you hold to the evolutionary belief system.
RS:
Evolutionary BELIEF system? [expletive]? Lol! Belief??? Mi madre! Cada loco! [laughing emoji]
GW:
Kevin, first, we need to get something straight. In your mind, what do you think evolution is? Based on your comments here so far, it doesn't seem you have a grasp of the fundamental definition of evolution.
Me:
On the contrary, it seems as though nobody in this thread has a grasp on how to defend “molecules-to-man” evolution with observable evidence. If you claim to understand the “fundamental definition of evolution” better than I do, then please answer my original question in the thread.
RF:
Kevin, I gave you a link to a good resource. Please use it. talkorigins.org
GW:
Kevin, your original question asked about "brand new genetic information". We need to know what you have in mind by that term. As of current, new genetic information is being added to gene pools regularly via mutations. All my freshman biology students would know that mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic information. The fact that you have to ask about that shows that you don't have the most basic understanding of biology and evolution.
Me:
I’ll provide a brief explanation and example for you to see what I have in mind. You say mutations are the source of new genetic information. Some scientists hail the blind cavefish as an example of “evolution in action": a certain species of fish mutated and lost its eyesight, but these fish are surviving well in dark caves where eyesight is not necessary (see http://www.spacedaily.com/.../Blind_cavefish_offer...). Certainly, this is an observable example of change in the genotype and phenotype of the organism. However, the fish ultimately lost information and functionality. Losing eyesight is essentially a “downhill” process. This appears to be genetic entropy more than anything. Can you give me an observable example where we observe the opposite? In other words, can you give me an observable example of a blind organism that mutated brand new genetic information and gained eyesight for the very first time?
This debate took a fascinating twist with GW referring to his “freshman biology students.” Is GW a biology professor, or just a high-school teacher? I don't know. Either way, even this biology teacher struggles to answer my question. In the next blog post, I will share Part 3 of 4 of the debate where GW tries to offer evidence.
By the way, the photograph in this blog is of the blind cavefish.