Circular reasoning in this claim about speciation?

"For example, the closest living relatives of humans are the chimpanzees and the bonobos. We share 96-98% of our genome with chimpanzees, yet our most recent shared ancestor lived 5-7 million years ago. If it takes as much as 5 million years for that much change to accumulate, how can Ben expect to observe speciation in his lifetime?"

Taken from http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/contest/on-the-evidence-for-evolution

Is it just me, or is there some circular reasoning involved here?  I'll explain via a dialogue (ala Plato =]):

A: "Because we have not observed speciation, we cannot offer evidence for evolution."
B: "If, according to our predictions based on evolution, humans and apes did speciate from a common ancestor, and that ancestor lived 5-7 million years ago, then we could conclude that it takes about 5 million years to speciate.  Therefore, we would not expect to see speciation."

Maybe not.  Either way, it makes speciation a moot point in the debate, as both creationist and evolutionist views would not expect speciation. 

No comments: