Evolutionists often fall victim to circular reasoning when arguing for their theory. If the evidence for your position relies on speculation based on assuming your position is true, you are reasoning in a circle. This was made clear in another response about Orphan Genes.
John started by claiming that “Multiple genome-scale studies show that many lineage-specific genes disappear once methods and sampling improve.” He is attempting to show that my claim: “studies show 10-20% of genes per species are orphans, and as more genomes are sequenced, new
Next, John states that, “direct tests have documented de novo gene birth from noncoding DNA.” He also says a few posts later that “De novo gene birth has been shown in yeast and in humans…” In this, John is simply wrong. I want to make this clear: No research has documented
Next, John catches a slip I made. He attempts a correction here: “First, orphans are not “genes with no evolutionary history.” Fair point, John. That should have said “No KNOWN evolutionary history.” - my fault. But then he says that “Some [Orphan Genes] are genuinely new,
John states that “evolution doesn't predict that orphans should be rare.” But that’s just false. They DID predict that - they don’t anymore, because they changed their theory with the data - as always happens with evolutionism. Contradictory data arises, and the theory changes.
John next states that “Duplication with divergence and exon shuffling remain well-documented routes to novelty across taxa.” And he shares yet ANOTHER paper which relies on comparative genomics to speculate about the evolutionary past of human genes. See the pattern? John then
John then further digs into his misunderstandings of Lenski’s LTEE. Lenski’s LTEE did not show any genetic novelty arising. I wrote a whole long thread on this experiment - you should read it! I will link it for you here: https://x.com/DivinelyDesined/...
And finally, John states that “On theology, Augustine and Aquinas don't help your conclusion.” But didn’t I already make the point that I don’t really care what two theologians have said about this topic? I care what the Word of God says, and God’s Word clearly says that He made
So, John’s objection fails. It is circular at its core. Literally every example he provided uses speculative methods which rely on the assumption that evolution is true. And this is the pattern for Evolutionists. Speculation and assumption. Circularity. Begging the question.
@DivinelyDesined Just gonna try this.. @grok can you summarize in laymen’s terms the positions of each of these threads starting from the original?