As an apologist I am always interested in defining my terms, and helping others to see that their arguments are utterly fallacious. If one took away all the mistakes in an argument perhaps they would, ultimately, abandon the argument, and maybe the faulty position entirely. In my conversations with evolutionists, I have often noticed that evolutionists like to accuse those who oppose their position of "not understanding" what they believe, so, awhile back, I got both of Charles Darwin's books, The Origin of Species (formally On Origin of Species) and Descent of Man in the event that someone tries to accuse me of not understanding evolution.
In the conversation that follows, I had just previously responded to another evolutionist who, afterwards, I had posted his comments on my website here when, a different one, decided to respond to my reply. Taken up the challenge, we began responding back to each other. Below is that dialogue that we had. His words will be in red, and mine in blue. Also, I will make my personal conclusion at the end in black. Any bold, unless added for emphasis, will be bolded in its respected color. To protect his identity, I will name him "Fred" and we continue our conversation below as he responded to me responding to another person that I had, previously, called "Gust" in a previous post.
Fred: What a lot of words to say not a [darn] thing at all. What we are talking about is adding something that is new that was not there previously [loosely citing me] - but it WASN'T there previously. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. When there's a new mutation which produces a novel affect then this is something that WASN'T there previously. What else are you looking for?? Magic?? If so then this is just a strawman. Whatever you're looking for is NOT an accurate representation of evolution. And YES we do DO have evidence for this. We've observed organisms mutate and develop new traits they did not possess beforehand. And I do not give a [darn] about Werner Gitt. He's another one of Answer's in Genesis's lackeys.
Brian: No, you're not adding new information to the genome, but is working off the same information that is already there. It is a known fact that mutations do not produce new genetic information. This is why I included quotes to the guy above. I don't think you know anything about genetics or you would've known that. It's not "magic" nor does anything I claimed suggest that, so you are intentionally misrepresenting me. If you add a pesticide to a colony of bees, the ones that die off are not suited for survival, but the ones that survive do so bc they have the trait that was already there in their genetics to resist the pesticide. They go on to produce offspring that carry the same resistance (or trait) and next thing you know, the whole colony possesses the resistance. This is true Natural Selection, which is not only not evolution, but it is the exact opposite of evolution, bc it is working off the same information that is already there. Btw, I never said we don't have evidence of "new traits" I said that there's no evidence for evolution. You are assuming that this is evolution which begs the question. Werner Gitt, nor I, work for Answers in Genesis so we are not there "lackeys" which is the question-begging epithet fallacy. Also, YEC has been around for over 2,000 years long before Answers in Genesis even came around. If you are trying to say he's a YEC, then yes, he is, but he is also one of the world's premiere expert on Information Science, so you might be assuming what is called a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy whereby you are attacking Gitt's motivation. At any rate, I cited him to the other guy who never responded back, probably cause he knew he had lost our debate and didn't know how to respond. Just as you've given bad responses, and showed that you lacked knowledge in genetics. So, it really wouldn't matter if you cared or not.
Since you have accused me of not understanding evolution, I guess cause I kept bringing up that evolution requires new information to be added to the genome in order to create new body plans like that to the other guy, I like to cite someone you do care about: "He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendent of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties, and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lowest animals. Again, are the variations the result, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, of the same general causes, and are they governed by the same general laws, as in the case of other organisms, for instance, by correlation, the inherited effects of use and disuse, etc.? Is man subject to similar malconformations, the result of arrested development, of reduplications of parts, etc., and does he display in any of his anomalies reversions to some former and ancient type of structure? It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rose to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classed as doubtful species?" (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 7, emphasis added). Of course, there are lots of errors in Darwin's statement here that I, either, told you or the other guy was fallacious that I won't repeat here, but I will say this: Charles Darwin knew nothing about genetics, and what we know about genetics today contradicts his claims. Furthermore, Darwin writes: "This is a most perplexing subject. It cannot be denied that changed conditions produce some, and occasionally a considerable effect, on organisms of all kinds, and it seems at first probable that if sufficient time were allowed this would be the invariable result. But I have failed to obtain clear evidence in favor of this conclusion, and valid reasons may be urged on the other side, at least as far as the innumerable structures are concerned, which are adapted for species ends. There can, however, be no doubt that changed conditions induce an almost indefinite amount of fluctuations variability, by which the whole organisation [sic] is rendered in some degree plastic. (Ibid., p. 22, emphasis added). Darwin might've not known much about genetics, but he knew one thing, his theory lacked evidence for it, and it still does!
I understand "evolution" just fine, but that's not the issue. The issues is that I know exactly what it claims, and disagree with it. I have both of Charles Darwin's books, and can cite them at will. So, I am not making any kind of strawman, but I am starting to wonder if you know your own position. The guy above might've not known much about my position, or the issues in this debate, but he at least seem to have a firm grasp on his own beliefs and position. Let me cite another passage from Charles Darwin: "To suppose that the eye with its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 73 and 75). In the later, he goes on to claim that he thinks that's not the case (p. 75), but despite Darwin's lack of expertise in genetics, we know far more than they did then. They knew next to nothing at that time. They couldn't even peered in a cell at that time. However, Darwin's challenge was taken up, both by creationists and evolutionists. Michael Behe, an evolutionist commented, "In Darwin's thinking, evolution could not build a complex organ in one step or a few steps; radical innovations such as the eye would require generations of organisms to slowly accumulate beneficial changes in a gradual process. He realized that in one generation an organ as complex as the eye suddenly appeared, it would be tantamount to a miracle. Unfortunately, gradual development of the human eye appeared to be impossible, since its many sophisticated features seemed to be interdependent. Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the public that complex organs could be formed in a step-by-step process" (Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, p. 16). He goes on to invent the term "irreducible complexity" which he defines as, "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes to effectively cease functioning" and he introduced this as a powerful challenge to evolution (Ibid., p. 39). He goes on to say: "Biochemistry has demonstrated that any biological apparatus involving more than one cell (such as an organ or a tissue) is necessarily an intricate web of many different, identifiable systems of horrendous complexity. The 'simplest' self-sufficient, replicating cell has the compacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules, at different times and under variable conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication--all of these functions take place in virtually every cell, and each function itself requires the interactions of numerous parts" (Ibid., p. 46). He goes on to say he thinks evolution happens at the "nuts and bolts" level, which I would disagree with him at this point, since minor variations within a kind is not "evolution", but he does acknowledge at least that these systems deriving at through "descent with modifications" is absurd and it shows that evolution, as you mean it, does not work.
Anyhow, thanks for the reply and response, just next time, try not to cuss at me as you are giving your arguments. This has more to do with emotional language than with rational arguments. Also, I had plenty to say, and all very meaningful, although I doubt you read either of my long post, so such judgment calls is uncalled for. Blessings!
Fred: I have already explained how it’s still new information. Your idea of “new information” seems very spurious. You shift the definition whenever you need. Genes are essentially recipes for proteins. It doesn’t matter that the building blocks are the same, the results will be different, it will create novel features that were never there before! That’s all that matters. You can complain, you can moan, you can gripe about “not new information” - it’s irrelevant. All that matters is that these changes produce new effects. That’s how evolution works. Adding quotes from Answers in Genesis only damages your case, not adds to it. And yes, Werner Gitt DID work for Answers in Genesis and wrote many articles for them - he is a Young Earth Creation and thinks the world is only 6000 years old!! A demonstrably false position to take. I said that there's no evidence for evolution - but that IS evolution! You have NO idea what you’re talking about! This is a total strawman. You don’t know what you’re attacking! I kept bringing up that evolution requires new information to be added to the genome in order to create new body - and we have already demonstrated that. You shifting your definitions to avoid that only shows your dishonesty. The rest looks like a pile of dishonest quote mining so I’m not going to be bothered to address any of it. I’m not going to waste time with lies.
Here's a video addressing all the common creationist claims:https://youtu.be/aN4VbGXVDeo.
Brian: Wow! Alright, let's do this!
"I have already explained how it’s still new information. Your idea of “new information” seems very spurious. You shift the definition whenever you need. Genes are essentially recipes for proteins. It doesn’t matter that the building blocks are the same, the results will be different, it will create novel features that were never there before! That’s all that matters. You can complain, you can moan, you can gripe about “not new information” - it’s irrelevant. All that matters is that these changes produce new effects. That’s how evolution works."
Yeah, evolution doesn't work at all, but we'll get there. First, it is not new information. Perhaps an example will work, especially since the facts and evidence doesn't seem to work with you. If I said "You are wrong" but then said "You are very wrong." I added the word "very" in, but that wouldn't be new information, but I would be adding a word in, but the information, namely I am calling you wrong, would remain the same. However, for evolution the situation is worse. Say I used the same words, just expressed in different ways. "You are wrong!" "Are you wrong?" "Wrong, you are!" That last one was my Yoda impression. Would I be adding in new information? No! However, this is what mutations do, or they cause a loss of genetic information. Let's say I sent you an email saying "Your arguments are the worse kind of media ever produced in print." However, due to a data corruption you got, instead, "You...are the worse...media...in print." Would that produce new information? No! You lost information. It is irrational to think you can lose more and more information, and you would eventually gain Beethoven's Symphonies, or the entire volume of Encyclopedia Britannica. You cannot do that and be rational with your arguments.
Secondly, I never shifted my definition. In fact, I constantly explained what I meant, both to the other guy, and to you, and I have been very consistent with this. If you knew our arguments at all, then you know this is the same definition provided by all YECs, but I think you know less about our positions than the other guy. New information is information that wasn't there previously. If the information was already there, or it lost previous information as in my example above indicated, then it is not new information.
Thirdly, it does matter. Evolution claims that all creatures and plants on Earth originated from a common ancestor. This requires new body plans. If I build a fireplace, would it matter if my home had a chimney? Yes, it would. I cited Charles Darwin to you. This is the position of all evolutionists. Grip it and bear it, but this is what you guys believe in. Maybe instead of misrepresenting your own theory, maybe you should consider abandoning it.
Fourthly, the traits are being produced by already existing information, and are, therefore, not new information, so there's no point in calling it that. Why would I need to "complain", "moan" or "groan"? I'm right, your wrong, and I've already demonstrate this. In addition to that, it is relevant to Darwinian evolution bc that's what is claimed by the theory. What it is, is that your bogus theory doesn't add up to the evidence, so you try to say, "well, all that's irrelevant! All that's irrelevant!" When, in fact, it's very relevant, just devastating to what your theory claims! LOL! Again, these "new traits" are produced from the information that is already present, so there's no additional information added, therefore it's not evolution.
"Adding quotes from Answers in Genesis only damages your case, not adds to it. And yes, Werner Gitt DID work for Answers in Genesis and wrote many articles for them - he is a Young Earth Creation and thinks the world is only 6000 years old!! A demonstrably false position to take."
I had already said that Werner Gitt was a YEC, but he wasn't currently working there. The fact that he used to be affiliated with them directly, doesn't mean he still is, therefore you can't make a connection that's not there. At any given case, I had doubts about whether your argument was the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, but now that you've elaborated on your argument more, now I know that you are committing the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. This is a logical fallacy whereby you attack someone's motivation for an argument (such as them being bias) instead of their arguments. It would not hurt my case to appeal to a Ph.D. scientist for my facts that just happens to be working for (or have worked) for Answers in Genesis, but it does damage your argument when you attack their motivations. It would be akin to me rejecting everything Richard Dawkins said simply bc he was an atheist. In addition to that, once again, as I have already said (boy, I hate repeating myself!), I didn't cite Werner Git to you, I cited him to the other guy. In fact, I never cited anything from Answers in Genesis, to either you or the other guy. To you I cited five quotes, three of them was from Charles Darwin (who does not work for Answers in Genesis, btw--LOL!), and two of them was from Michael Behe (who is not a YEC, doesn't work for Answers in Genesis, and is a self-proclaimed evolutionist). None of my citations, including from the other guy came from the Answers in Genesis website (my quote from Werner Git came from his book "In the Beginning was Information", pp. 79-80, and 106). Btw, YEC is both defensible and true. The facts and evidence is consistent with it, but so far, you've only assumed your conclusion, and haven't demonstrated a thing. Disappointing.
"I said that there's no evidence for evolution - but that IS evolution! You have NO idea what you’re talking about! This is a total strawman. You don’t know what you’re attacking!"
This is not evolution since no new information is being added. I am not straw-manning you. I cited Charles Darwin to you. A strawman is when you attack a position someone doesn't hold to, or, a more nuanced version of it, attacking an argument someone isn't making. I am doing neither of these. Rejecting a position someone is making is not a strawman argument. You really need a class in logic, which is, btw, not justified in the atheistic position. If that was the case then you would've been straw-manning me since you reject my position. Strawman are misrepresentations of someone's arguments, not denials of them. I know you believe that you are adding new information, and have said this a number of times, but, factually, your not. Also, you are begging the question when you are assuming that evolution develops from these minor variations, which you have not yet demonstrated. Thinking that this fundamental point is "irrelevant" only makes the situation worse. I do know what I am talking about. I even cited from Charles Darwin. I don't think you know what you are talking about, only what you believe is the case, but you have yet to demonstrate it.
"I kept bringing up that evolution requires new information to be added to the genome in order to create new body - and we have already demonstrated that. You shifting your definitions to avoid that only shows your dishonesty."
You didn't cite me all the way that's "new body plans" in my words that you cut off. Actually, you haven't demonstrated anything. All you've done was assumed your position as a circular argument, but repeatedly asserting yourself on what you have not proven is a circular argument. Again, never "shifted" definitions. I remained consistent. If your information is not new, meaning information that was not there previously there like a pair of wings where the animal, previously, lacked that information, then it is not new information. I have always defined it this way, even to the other guy, which, if you had bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would've known that. Since you keep making false accusations where I have presented what it is that I am talking about in writing it is you that has exercise dishonesty.
"The rest looks like a pile of dishonest quote mining so I’m not going to be bothered to address any of it. I’m not going to waste time with lies. Here's a video addressing all the common creationist claims: https://youtu.be/aN4VbGXVDeo."
They weren't "dishonest quotes" since they were coming directly out of those sources, and the sources were evolutionists, and two of them were from Charles Darwin himself! You seem to think anything that disagrees with you is "dishonest" when that's not the definition of the word. If you bother reading what we wrote about things maybe you wouldn't strawman us, or be so confused about your own position. It is not "lies", only facts. The fact that you've chosen to reject them doesn't change this. As far as you "wasting your time with lies" you've done such a good job of this so far. Btw, anyone can present videos and articles opposing the other's perspective, this is why I didn't cite any. However, YouTube is littered with both perspectives, may I suggest to the reader to check out videos from both sides and see which one the facts and evidence is going to be consistent with. Also, might I add, before you debate again on this subject, make sure you know what evolution claims, the facts from science, mutations, and genetics, before you start sounding like what you tried to accuse me of, someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Blessings!
My Conclusion: Fred was confused about what Darwinian evolution was. Like many evolutionists, he was equivocating on the word "evolution" bc, linguistically, it means "change" so he assumed that any change in genetics no matter how small, even the subtraction of genetic information, was Darwinian evolution. However, in reality, Darwinian evolution claims that new body plans originated, with own set of new information that was not previously there.
To counter this Fred made ad hominem attacks, circular arguments, and strawman. I can always tell whenever someone is responding to me if that person has read what I wrote. It was pretty clear that I had read what he wrote, but he didn't bother to read what I had written. This shows that he wasn't even trying to understand my argument, and didn't want to. He kept accusing me of quoting Answers in Genesis when I never even quoted the cite, although there would be nothing wrong with citing it if I had chosen to. He was clearly trying to make a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, which he did with Werner Gitt bc he was a young-earth creationist, but that had no relevance to his statement nor the information that he had presented. At any case, my citation was from his book, not from the website, and I had cited him to the other guy, not to him.
I had cited from Charles Darwin, which he would've picked up if he'd bothered to give reading them a chance. One of the things that became clear to me in this debate is that Fred was clearly indoctrinated with evolution. He didn't want to listen to any other point of views, despite him engaging a few things that I have said.
He seemed to lack understanding on what Darwinian evolution was. He made a number of false allegations to me, including him accusing me of changing my definition of "new information" even though I have had the same definition of it that geneticists has, that all YECs have, and the same one that I have had throughout all of my responses to him, the other guy, and any other time I had talked or wrote about it. The problem wasn't me, nor my definition. The problem is that Fred refused to listen, and that can be a real problem when you are factually wrong and refuse correction like this.
I obviously won this debate. I really wished he would've at least tried to understand my position, or check out the quotes and facts that I presented to see if they were viable, instead of just him assuming his conclusion. The real problem with evolution is the fact that they, no matter how much they try, cannot get natural processes to produce new information. Producing new traits is not synonymous to new information. A loss of information does not produce new information. Mutations can't do it, and neither can natural selection. At the end, sadly, he resorted to presenting a link to a video that already agrees with him, which anyone can do, especially online, but he claimed evolution had evidence behind it, so I wanted evidence, and instead, I got fluff, factual inaccuracies, and false allegations. He never responded back, so it was a sad end to a very disappointing conversation.
コメント