Evolutionist Defense: Too Slow to Observe
Updated: Jun 27
When evolutionists try to provide observable examples of biological evolution, one of the most common go-to examples is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. In Part 3 of the Evolution as “Science” debate, humanist JW references that example, and I refute his claim. One humanist, BD, throws out a few ad hominem attacks. This portion of the debate would have represented more of the same typical arguments from humanists, except humanist PJ makes the claim that the “problem” with my “…definition of observable…” is the issue of time. Since I called for observable examples of organisms adding brand new genetic information and functionality, such as an originally-blind organism developing eyesight, PJ mentions that human lifespans are not long enough to observe that type of change. Well, if it’s not observable, then wouldn’t that mean that evolution is accepted by faith? That is one of the primary reasons why I asked my original question. See below for Part 3 of 10 of the Evolution as “Science” Debate transcript to see how I responded to PJ and a few other humanists.
Note: 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 transcript. Also, all names are abbreviated for privacy and brevity.
We have just observed stupidity in action - Try getting an education...
You exemplify the failure of education in America...
The problem with your definition of observable is time. The time that lapses to show the huge changes you mention is greater than human lifespans usually, but this does not mean they are not observable in relative terms. Your problem is you need to realise the lifespan of humans compared to the lifespan of a species is hugely different.
Is there any evidence that would convince you? Probably not I suspect. Reading the examples that you put forward suggest you have already made up your mind probably on the back of conspiracy theories.
That there are laboratory demonstrations of evolution for example development of drug resistance in cultured bacteria will be dismissed by you because you want to see a crocoduck. 😄
I think the development of the eye is a nice example! There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Loved your reference site. Do you wear s tin foil hat when reading this? 😄
RM, Obviously, that does not provide an adequate response to my question. I can use the same type of logic and say that hummingbirds are a great example of creation.
BD, your responses “exemplify the failure” of debating without civility. I desire civil discussion and debate, not personal attacks. If you want to try again with civil discussion and debate, I would be happy to continue the conversation with you.
PJ, what I really like about your response is that you seem to understand the type of evidence that I am asking for. You seem to understand that my original question calls for direct observation by a human. With that being said, your comment is somewhat of an admission that evolutionary claims are accepted by faith. As for the “relative terms” that we can observe, can you provide any specific observational examples of organisms that add brand new genetic information and functionality?
JW, bacterial resistance to drugs/antibiotics is an example of genetic loss of information, not gain. A basic example is this: a normal strand of bacteria produces an enzyme that reacts with the protein of the antibiotic; yet, the mutant bacteria no longer produces that particular enzyme, so it no longer reacts with the antibiotic. While this is a beneficial mutation for a specific environment, it’s still a loss of genetic information, not a gain. (Learn more at https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/).
As for your point about the eye, have you ever directly observed an originally-blind organism evolve eyesight?
Also, if you are so confident in your own evolutionary worldview, then why do you have to resort to personal attacks?
There was one other comment from JW later on the in the debate, which I will share in Part 5 of this blog post series. Otherwise, I did not see any further responses from RM, BD, or PJ.
PJ's comment allowed me to drive home the point that biological evolution is not observable, and therefore, it does not fall within the realm of observational science. He claims that evolution is observable in "relative terms," but there is no such observable example of an organism increasing genetic information and functionality. God's Word provides the most trustworthy starting point for understanding biology, and I make this point later on in the debate.
In Part 4 of the Evolution as “Science” debate, another humanist also confessed that “we’ve not been around long enough to witness such a change" regarding the claims of biological evolution. He brings up a few other topics as well, and I will share that portion of the debate in my next post.