In the final segment of the Bird Evolution Debate, humanist LB returns to the thread, following up from an earlier discussion (See Part 4 of the Bird Evolution Debate). LB claims that my points are “..refuted a thousand times,” and even makes the claim that evolution is “…overwhelmingly supported by a consensus of evidence…” LB copied and pasted links to several articles. Ironically, none of these articles contained any content that supported his own points, but rather, the content of the articles refute his points and support my points.
See below for seventh and final part of the Bird Evolution Debate.
Names are abbreviated for privacy and brevity.
'[LB], how is your statement anything more than a faith commitment to a worldview rather than a defense of the claimed “…reality of evolutionary processes”?'
@Kevin, because it's both evidence based and falsifiable. There is no faith required, and if new evidence were to overturn those conclusions, I'd have no problem acknowledging that.
'As I asked earlier in the thread, can you provide an observable example of an organism adding brand new genetic information...'
This is a tired, easily refuted claim made by those desperately and deliberately trying to misunderstand science in order to cling to dogma.
'...and functionality such as an originally blind organism evolving eyesight, or an originally flightless organism evolving the ability to fly?'
More of the same. These are PRATTs, 'Points Refuted A Thousand Times'.
An inability or unwillingness to understand something does not invalidate it when it is overwhelmingly supported by a consensus of evidence and expertise in multiple fields.
Hi Liam. I read the articles you shared. You made three key claims: (1) “There is no faith required” [for evolution]; (2) “…tired, easily refuted claim…” [regarding my question] and (3) “…PRATTs…” [regarding my question]
None of the articles you shared are able to support those three claims.
First article: “Evolution Myths.” The author claims that a “simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?” I clicked the hyperlink and read some of the journal article. The referenced “gene activity” is in regards to various expressions and inhibitions of several *preexisting* genes and transcription factors. The journal article even admits,
“There are no species, in the extant or fossil fauna, representative of the transitional stage between the dual chambered heart of basal vertebrates and single-compartment hearts of invertebrate chordates, such as Ciona.”
None of the other examples in the article answer my question. Where are the observable examples of macro-level advancements such as an originally-blind organism evolving eyesight, or an originally flight-less creature evolving the ability to fly? Molecules-to-bird/dinosaur/Man/etc. type of evolution requires such advancements. Surely if there were such examples, this article would gladly list them. On a separate note, the article briefly discusses speciation, but the evolutionary model does not eliminate competing models for speciation, such as the CHNP model that I shared earlier in the thread (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/)
Second article: “How Does Evolution Add Information?” This article talks about various ideas and areas of research, but does not provide any observable examples.
Third article: “Evolution of the Eye” (PBS). There are no observable examples cited in this article whatsoever. The language used is very revealing: “Scientists have come up with scenarios…” “Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved” “It could have arisen…” These are ideas, or stories, but not observable examples of eye evolution-in-action.
Fourth article: “Evolution of the Eye” (Science Daily). Ironically, this article uses the phrase “believed to” which is an indication of faith. “…have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago…” They have to “believe,” because nobody was there the supposed 540 million years ago to witness such an event. “The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years.” Again, more belief, but no observational science.
Fifth article: “The Evolution of Flight.” The second sentence of this article runs counter to your claims right away: “Since flight evolved millions of years ago in all of the groups that are capable of flight today, we can't observe the changes in behavior and much of the morphology that the evolution of flight involves.” They admit that flight evolution has never been observed, and to claim that flight evolved millions of years ago is unverifiable (and begs the question), because nobody was around millions of years ago to witness such an event. The article goes on to discuss various hypotheses regarding the origin of flight, but no observable examples.
Sixth article: “Origin of Bird Flight Explained.” This is a hypothesis, not any kind of observable example.
“An inability or unwillingness to understand something does not invalidate it when it is overwhelmingly supported by a consensus of evidence and expertise in multiple fields.”
There may be overwhelming consensus among PhD scientists concerning belief in evolution, but that’s the appeal to majority and authority logical fallacy, because I can reference the minority of PhD scientists who are biblical creationists. As for “overwhelmingly supported by…evidence,” none of the six articles provide any kind of observable evidence of macro-level evolutionary advancement such as an originally-blind organism evolving eyesight, or an originally flight-less organism evolving the ability to fly. Therefore, claim numbers (2) and (3) are not supported at all. Sure, they can claim that these changes happened “millions of years ago,” but nobody was there to observe such changes. Why can’t such evolution happen in modern times? If one simply says “maybe it is happening, but it’s too slow to observe,” then that requires faith. If we can’t observe it, then we have to “believe,” and some of these articles even use that type of language: “may have” “could have” “believed to be” and so forth. Therefore, not only is claim number (1) not supported, but it is completely contradicted by these articles.
I checked the thread up to six days later and did not see any further messages from LB or anyone else on this thread. Although LB claimed that there is overwhelming evidence to support his claims, he could not provide any observable examples. None will be found because God’s Word is true, and molecules-to-bird/dinosaur/man/etc. evolution never happened.
Why is mankind so willing to believe a lie rather than seek after the Truth? Read John 3:19-21 and Romans 1:18-32. I pray that someday, some of these humanists will repent of their sin and turn to the Truth (John 14:6) and be saved.