Quote:
Originally Posted by danmpem  I think he did try to answer the question. It appears he didn't, because he didn't use the same vocabulary as she did. |
He, at best, evaded it. He didn't really answer the question. The question was whether or not we have any examples (emperical evidence) of Evolution adding information to the genome in successive mutations.
Instead of answering that question he only stated that, basically, what we have now is what we have.
In other words, he may be correct in asserting that we should not be looking at the current fish genome, comparing it to the current lizard genome, and assuming that the lizard genome is an addition to the current fish genome.
But, all he did was overawe the scientifically illiterate here. "Oh, Richard, you're
sooo smart. Can you use more words for me...."
The very basis for his assertion that there is no God is rooted in emperical observation. Yet, at the very starting point of his argument
for evolution he cannot base this in empericism.
An honest, emperical answer would be: "No, we have no examples of this...."
Because, at the basic point of substantiating their claim, Evolutionists depart from a Naturalistic worldview that insists that all assertions must be emperically verifiable. His theory, on its most basic level, is simply offered on point of bare assertion: "We have no examples of information being added to the genome in successive generations but, trust us, this happened billions of years ago. Just look: we have a fish genome and a lizard genome. For there to be these "cousins", there
must have been a time in the past where a genome evolved from a simple state to a more complex state. This must be true because Evolution is true."