Repeated, Yet Refuted Arguments for Evolution
Updated: Feb 15
Given the lengthy time-span and numerous participants of the Evolution as “Science” Debate on the Friendly Atheist Facebook page, I was not able to read and respond to about 20+ comments until the day after the debate began. Despite my somewhat delayed timing, I assume that many of the humanists saw my rebuttals since some of them responded. With that said, when responding to so many comments, there is so much repetition of common, yet previously-refuted arguments. In response to these comments, I saved myself some time by referring them to my earlier comments in the thread. Also, some humanist comments contained zero substance; these comments were not worthy of any lengthy reply.
In Part 5 of the debate transcript below, I kept my rebuttals short and simple to save time. For some comments, I refer the humanist to my “first response to JW” which can be found here. For other comments, I refer the humanist to “my response to RC” which can be found in my previous blog post.
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've seen speciation in bacteria.
AS, I hope I have this right but I think we have seen speciation occurring in rabbits which is a bigger thing (pun not intended :) ) A rabbit introduced into the north US has spread both into Canada and into the south US/mexico. If I read this aright the N. US population can still breed with both other populations but the two extreme populations are now so diverged that breeding is problematic.
None of this will have any impact on Kevin because he believes evolution doesn't happen and belief trumps science every time :)
Methicillin Resistant Staphyiloccus Aureus.
I suggest you go back to school and if you are serious about learning evolution take biology, otherwise shut up and quit your whining. 🤣
Speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions. https://futurism.com/breakthrough-scientists-see-the.../
Kevin, ask an evolutionary biologist. There is a whole field of study. Get real man.
Please don’t reproduce anymore Kevin. The perpetuation of your belief system is slowing down humanity. From creationism, evangelical Christians, Islam, Judaism etc etc the money and and social impact this has on the world from believing in an imaginary ‘god’ (1 out of 3000+ god options) Ensure decision’s are made based on complete nonsense. You gave up believing in Santa as a growing child I presume? god is as real as the fat red and white bearded sleigh driver! Give it up! Don’t claim a strawman either as your question has been answered below. Start some critical thinking!
Your lack of understanding of evolution doesn’t make it less real.
Did you know: We've already observed it? Moths recently evolved.
Go get a BS and find out.
Kevin, this is one example of evolution. There are many more if you are willing to open your eyes and mind.
Scientists have discovered the specific mutation that famously turned moths black during the Industrial Revolution. In an iconic evolutionary case study, a black form of the peppered moth rapidly took over in industrial parts of the UK during the 1800s, as soot blackened the tree trunks and walls of its habitat. Jun 1, 2016
Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed - BBC News - BBC.com
Kevin - this is such a misunderstanding creationist talking point about what science is, that it's painful.
Evolution is observable, not only in real time, but also through archaeological information, which is observable also.
It is testable through lab experiments that take something like bacteria - and watch it develop and change along the lines one would expect if evolution were true.
It is further testable through its use in medicine and farming for example. If the theory were wrong - its use in those areas wouldn't work. It's just that simple. It does work - so therefore the understanding of it must be correct.
It is repeatable if any information or experiment is able to be repeated - with the same results - by another scientist.
It has predictive powers - understanding the mechanism allows for scientists to predict a particular creature should be found that bridges an evolutionary gap - and sure enough, many such creatures have been found - both in fossil form and also in currently living form.
There really is no room for doubt anymore about this subject - the information from myriad disciplines in science continues to confirm it to be correct.
It's probably the most studied of all fields in science. So much has been investigated and written about it now, that no one person could possibly ever hope to be across it all in their single life time.
Not even a question.
The kind of change your talking about takes a very long time, one species evolving into another one. We can observe evolution on a small scale. You can visit museums and see the fossils that support evolution. Evolution isn't something you believe in, its something you understand.
Whales descend from 4legged mammals...you obviously don’t know that
Um... it is observable and repeatable. I dont think you realize the time scale.
AS, see my first response to JW.
JW, responding to your second comment: creation scientists expect to observe speciation within a created “kind” but not a change of “kind.” Assuming your example is true (and I would not be surprised if it is true), then the rabbits are still rabbits. The rabbits did not change into dogs for example. You can learn more about the difference between natural selection and evolution here: (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/)
BA, see my first response to JW
PM, see my previous responses regarding natural selection versus evolution.
JK, what about gad flies? Please explain.
PD, there is no substance to your comment. If you want to have respectful, civil dialogue, then I will be happy to continue the conversation with you.
CR, there is no substance to your comment. If you want to have respectful, civil dialogue, then I will be happy to continue the conversation with you.
TP, the moths are still moths, and the differences are explained through genetic recombination. This is not an example of new genetic information and functionality. You can learn more here: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peppered-moth-again/
DP, see my response to TP.
JB, I answered your arguments in previous comments. See above.
MH, see my response to RC above.
OB, did you directly observe the whales descend from four-legged mammals?
NG, see my response to RC above.
While the above comments did not necessitate lengthy responses due to either (1) my previous posts that rebutted similar arguments or (2) the comments just did not contain substance, there was one comment in the midst of this portion of the debate that I took much more time with. You may have noticed that comment number 19 was missing in this portion of the debate transcript. This comment was from humanist MR who posted a lengthy, detailed set of arguments. I will share MR's comment in my next blog post, along with my response, in Part 6 of the Evolution as “Science” Debate.