At the end of Part 3 of the Overwhelming Evidence debate, I refuted the claim that “change is change” by illustrating the fact that the evolutionary worldview requires an “uphill” process to go from a single-celled organism to a Man. I also refuted GW’s claim that hox genes are an observable example of an increase in genetic information and functionality. RF and GW did not offer any more responses. Instead, a few other humanists jumped into the debate in the overnight hours (from the perspective of Eastern Standard Time), but as you will see, they too struggle to answer my original question. Instead, they resort to the logical fallacy of irrelevant thesis, and in one case, an ad hominem attack. I didn’t get to respond until much later in the day. Whether they saw my response or not, my response appears to conclude the debate, since I kept checking back over the next couple days and did not see any further responses. Below is the fourth and final part of the debate.
DL:
Kevin Hadsall is an idiot everyone. Say hello to him. Not To quickly he might not undestand.
JK:
Kevin Hadsall you don't understand evolution!
JK:
Kevin Hadsall because your question is a straw man!
JK:
Kevin Hadsall entropy does not apply to biology, it applies to physics. The second law of thermodynamics refers to a CLISED system. Again, you don't understand how science works.
CP:
I love when these people just ask ordinary people for proof and if any layman off the street or internet happens to not be educated enough of the subject to prove it, that somehow means the evidence is non-existant.
KM:
That's the great thing about science. It's true whether or not you 'believe' in it. Evolution and science in general is not a belief system. It is a method and practice in physical terms and in the way we think. I'm no scientist and my understanding is probably on an elementary level for sure, but I at the very least understand this much.
DD:
Kevin Hadsall, bacteria evolve all the time by sharing resistance to antibiotics. That's new DNA acquired, although it doesn't, of itself, create a new species. I don't know why anti-evolutionists are so fixated on organisms suddenly popping up with a new eye, or suddenly acquiring any new trait, when the process of evolution is excruciatingly slow. The real question is whether creationists can show any evidence of a creator, other than their Buybull.
Me:
JK, your accusation is logically absurd. If biology depends on chemistry, and if chemistry depends on physics, then certainly the second law of thermodynamics impacts biology. If the entire universe is subject to entropy, then biology is not free from its effects. In fact, dictionary.com has this to say about entropy: “(in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.” Since DNA is an information language, we can define the loss of genetic information as “entropy” as well. This is a really big problem for the evolutionary worldview, but not a problem for the biblical worldview. God created everything originally “very good” (Genesis 1:31), but because of man’s rebellion (Genesis 3), we now live in a cursed creation. The fact that we see so much design and beauty in the universe, but also see so much decay, disease, death, etc., is to be expected based on Genesis. However, those who repent and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for salvation have a day to look forward to where there will be a new heavens and a new earth with no more pain, no more suffering, and no more death (Revelation 21). CP, what is interesting about this debate is that about ten different atheists have joined the discussion, and not a single one of them can provide a satisfying answer to my original question. Perhaps everyone reading this should consider the concept that there just isn’t any observational evidence for “molecules-to-man” evolution: organisms gaining new information and complexity. The evolutionary worldview is built on a lot of philosophy (or even “religion”) as opposed to observational science. KM, I recommend you come to a better understanding of the difference between observational science and historical science. Observational science is the kind of science that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable. Historical science is the analysis of circumstantial evidence in the present (such as rock layers and fossils), and developing interpretations of what happened in the past. However, without a “time machine,” we cannot test any conclusions that we come up with in historical science. Here’s a short video that provides an illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Z0PAqgjWo DD, even bacterial resistance to antibiotics is just another example of the loss or distortion of already-existing genetic information. For example, if the bacteria mutates so that it no longer produces a protein that would normally react to the antibiotic, then although it may be "beneficial," it is not an ultimate gain of new information and complexity. Even horizontal gene transfer is not the creation of new information and complexity, since the genes themselves are pre-existing. Here’s an article where you can learn much more in-depth: https://answersingenesis.org/.../a-creationist.../. Also, to say that evolution is just “excruciatingly slow” is a convenient way of avoiding the topic of observable evidence.