As shared in Part 1 of the Evolution as “Science” Debate transcript, I challenged humanists on the Friendly Atheist Facebook page to provide observable examples of organisms that add brand new genetic information and functionality, such as an originally-blind organism evolving eyesight. Numerous humanists responded. In Part 1, Humanists CB and AC tried to respond with claimed evidences, but both claims were easily refuted. Humanist RW only responded with ad hominem attacks. In Part 2 of the debate transcript, I share comments from Humanist KY, along with my rebuttals.
As with Part 1 of 10, the Part 2 transcript portions are in topical order for clarity, but the posts are numbered to maintain chronological integrity. By the time I share Part 10 of this blog post series, I will have shared the entire debate script. Below is Part 2 of the Evolution as “Science” Debate.
7. KY:
https://youtu.be/2X1iwLqM2t0
https://youtu.be/OuqFUdqNYhg
https://youtu.be/jVKZuSdu-bA
https://youtu.be/lIEoO5KdPvg
8. KY:
[Note: comment numbers 9 through 31 will be addressed in subsequent posts. Comment numbers 32 and 33 were shared in Part 1]
34. Kevin:
KY, I will respond to each video individually:
Video 1: Richard Dawkins providing a “demonstration” of the evolution of the eye is not observable science. Dawkins never directly observed the evolution of any types of eyes. He is simply telling “stories” as to how various eye types supposedly evolved. Therefore, this fails to answer my question.
Video 2: How is this observable science? Who observed the animals and plants live, reproduce, and die? Nobody. They exist today as fossils, but nobody observed the life of the fossilized animals and plants to know if they even reproduced to make the supposed “transition” to another animal or plant kind. This is not observational science, but falls into the realm of historical science. (https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/nature-of-science/)
Video 3: Same comment as Video #2. I’m asking about observational science in my original question, not historical science. This is not relevant to the specific question that I asked in my original post. I’m asking for something that is truly observable, testable, and repeatable. Since neither you nor the evolutionary scientists lived the supposed millions of years ago to actually observe the life of these creatures, you are relying on faith, not observational science.
Video 4: The lines of “evidence” in this video commit many logical fallacies, especially the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. One argument in the video says this:
1. If all forms of life on earth share a common ancestor, then we would expect to see anatomy similarity among various forms of life.
2. We see anatomy similarity among various forms of life.
3. Therefore, all forms of life on earth share a common ancestor.
That is not a logical proof though. It’s similar to saying “if it is snowing, then it must be cold outside…it is cold outside…therefore, it must be snowing.” Obviously, just because it’s cold outside does not mean that it is snowing. I could use similar logic, though it would not be a “proof”:
1. If all forms of life on earth were created and by a common Designer (the God of the Bible), then we would expect to see design similarities among various forms of life
2. We see design similarities among various forms of life
3. The evidence is consistent with a common Designer.
Embryology: this is not an observable example of evolution-in-action, but speculation at best. For example, they mention embryo similarity between monkey hands and bat wings. Who directly observed the evolution of a bat? The evolutionary worldview depends on a lot of faith, not observational science.
Fossils: I already addressed this topic on the other videos.
DNA comparisons: this is committing the same logical fallacy as that of the comparative anatomy argument. I can use the same logic and point to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.
All in all, this video did not provide a shred of direct observational evidence for an organism adding brand new genetic information and functionality. Everything in the video is based on faith and speculation.
As for your Dover 2005 Intelligent Design diagram, again, I addressed that point earlier in the discussion about fossils. This is not an observable example.
I did not see any further responses from KY. Perhaps KY and/or other humanists will come to realize that their belief in evolution is based on faith, not observable science.
In Part 3 of the Evolution as “Science” debate, a few other humanists join the thread, and one of them makes the claim that evolution is too slow to observe. I will share that portion of the debate in my next post.