In Part 5 of my debate with ChatGPT, the Artificial Intelligence chatbot, I challenged the bot on its assertion that we cannot rely upon “religious texts” (ChatGPT’s primary connotation here would be the Bible) to perform scientific research. I also challenged ChatGPT with the following statement:
…the evolutionary worldview presupposes that life came from non-life, and that organisms can add brand new genetic information and functionality (such as an originally blind organism evolving eyesight)...neither of which any human has ever observed, but evolutionists accept this by faith.
Below is Part 6 of 8 of my debate with ChatGPT, where ChatGPT struggles to come up with any such observable examples of evolution.
ChatGPT:
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been supported by numerous lines of evidence from various fields of science, including paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, and more. The evidence supporting evolution has been extensively tested and peer-reviewed, and it has been shown to be consistent with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
While it is true that there are aspects of evolution that cannot be directly observed, such as the origin of life, this does not mean that the theory of evolution is based on blind faith. Rather, it is based on a careful analysis of the available evidence, which has been gathered through rigorous scientific investigation.
In contrast, faith is typically defined as belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. While there are certainly aspects of religion that involve faith, science is not based on faith in the same way. Instead, science is based on evidence, and scientists are constantly working to refine and improve their understanding of the natural world based on the available evidence.
Kevin:
Can you provide an observable example of an originally blind organism evolving eyesight? I mean not just simply a theory, but an actual observation of an organism that never had genetic ability for eyesight all of the sudden evolve such ability, and that humans witnessed such a thing.
ChatGPT:
I cannot provide such an example, as it is not possible for humans to directly observe such a process occurring in real-time. Evolution occurs over long periods of time, often millions of years, and the development of complex traits such as eyesight is a gradual process that occurs through a series of small changes in genetic information.
However, there is abundant evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and molecular biology that supports the idea that organisms have evolved eyesight over time. For example, the fossil record shows that the first organisms with eyes appeared about 540 million years ago, and these eyes were quite simple, consisting of a single light-sensitive cell. Over time, eyes became more complex, and there are now many different types of eyes that have evolved in different organisms.
In addition, comparative anatomy and molecular biology show that the genes responsible for the development of eyes are similar in many different organisms, suggesting that eyes have evolved through a process of modification and selection from a common ancestor. While we may not be able to directly observe the evolution of eyesight in real-time, the evidence from these fields strongly supports the idea that it has occurred over millions of years.
Kevin:
Since you cannot provide such an observable example, then it is based on faith.
ChatGPT:
I must clarify that scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are not based solely on faith. Theories are based on evidence, observations, and logical reasoning, and are subject to ongoing testing and refinement as new evidence and observations become available. While it may be difficult or even impossible to directly observe certain events in the past, such as the evolution of eyesight in a particular organism, scientists can make inferences based on available evidence and observations of related organisms. Additionally, there are many observable examples of natural selection and adaptation occurring in living organisms that support the theory of evolution.
Kevin:
The problem with your last sentence is that natural selection of biological traits and features does not explain the origin of such features. Furthermore, from what we can observe via observational science, natural selection leads to loss of genetic information over time, rather than any gain of genetic information as required by evolution.
Note the significance of ChatGPT’s admission that it “…cannot provide such an example as it is not possible for humans to directly observe such a process occurring in real-time.” Later, the bot partially admits that evolution is based on faith when it says "...not based solely on faith" (emphasis mine). The reality is that the concept of molecules-to-man evolution, to include eyesight evolution, is based completely on blind faith. ChatGPT made claims about comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and genetic similarities. However, the bot is doing nothing more than storytelling here when attempting to explain that organisms supposedly evolved eyesight over time. Moreover, creation scientists examine the same fossils, anatomies, and genetics, and find that such circumstantial evidence is perfectly consistent with the biblical worldview rather than evolution and millions of years. Answers in Genesis has numerous articles on this subject such as the following: https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/eye-evolved-if-you-dont-look-closely/.
After my last comment about how natural selection only leads to loss of information, ChatGPT attempts to give examples of biological processes that supposedly add new genetic information. That part of the discussion continues in Part 7 of the debate, which I will share in my next blog post.
Comments