In Part 2 of the Overwhelming Evidence debate, I continued to challenge the humanists to provide observable evidence of an organism that gained new genetic information, functionality, and complexity. I also got to clarify my question with an example, where I said “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?” RF and GW were unable to provide an example. Since they were unable to provide an observable “uphill” example of evolution, RF and GW shift the definition of evolution by saying “change is change.” In response, I refute their position, and I also share my motivation with them. Below is Part 3 of the debate.
Kevin that is not entropy. Change is change. Sometimes a feature is lost because its cost outweighs its benefit. That is still evolution. Please follow the link I provided for you. talkorigins.org
"Losing eyesight is essentially a “downhill” process. This appears to be genetic entropy more than anything." Again, you're making mistakes that high school biology students would make. This is how I know that you lack the fundamental understanding of evolution. The process of evolution has no direction or goal. There is no "uphill" or "downhill" change, nor is there such thing as "genetic entropy" or "genetic decay". Those are not real concepts but nonsense invented by deniers in an effort to discredit science. While there are levels of organization in biology (e.g., population, ecosystem, etc.), there is no grand scheme or plan. Therefore it's senseless to talk about what feature is "downhill". And as Raenna pointed out, evolution simply means change, and change is change, doesn't matter which way.
And if you really want examples of novel structures growing out of nothing, look up things like Hox genes. There are plenty of other examples as well. You just need to know where to look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
GW, while you may claim that there is no “downhill” or “uphill” change, your worldview requires it! To go from a single-celled organism to a human being, certainly genetic information needs to be added. The same concept applies for an originally blind organism to gain the capability of eyesight. As I read about the Hox gene, this gene simply switches other genes on and off and directs their location. As your Wikipedia link says, “An analogy for the Hox genes can be made to the role of a play director that calls which scene the actors should carry out next.” However, Dr. David DeWitt makes a key observation concerning experimentation with the Hox gene: “The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.” https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/hox-hype/ RF, there’s not enough time in a single day (especially with other responsibilities…like daddy duty) to thoroughly review that website, so I will need to take a more in-depth look at a later time. I did get to briefly read Part 5 of the “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution,” which lists the following observable genome changes: “Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements.” However, I still haven’t found an example on the website where they observed any of these processes yielding the “uphill” genetic development required for an organism to truly create brand new information and associated capability. Again, where is the observable example of a blind organism developing eyesight for the very first time? All of the aforementioned processes still comprise of the recombination or altering of already-existing genetic information…even the horizontal gene transfer: https://answersingenesis.org/.../bacterias-unique-design.../ By the way, I don’t ultimately care about “winning” the argument. I was not born into a Christian home, and I grew up believing in evolution. I was taught evolution in high-school and college. It's a very long story, but I was born again in Christ shortly after undergrad, during my grad school years in February 2011. If I didn’t love Jesus and didn’t love “my neighbor,” then I should stay silent and not care whether or not you all fall into eternal judgment for your sins. Perhaps one atheist out of a thousand will read this debate, start to think more critically about evolution, decide to study creation science, and consider the deeper reasons why he or she is rejecting Creation and the God of the Bible. Whether you accept it or not, that’s my heart behind this discussion.
I kept checking for several hours before going to bed that night and did not see a response to my message above. When I checked the next day, I found responses from other atheists, and then I provided one last response. Over the next couple days I checked for any more responses, and didn't see any, so the debate concluded. I will share the fourth and final part of this debate in my next blog post.