Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

As I stated in my opening arguments, I will address my concerns with what he wrote in my rebuttals. He did not specify the structure of the debate, but merely seemed to impose such a constraint having read his writings past the first round.I am following the standard formatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)Round 3 & 4: Rebuttals and ConclusionsThis allows for both sides of the debate to adequately state their case, and provide rebuttals for the previous rounds. I also want to point out a few things before I carry on with my rebuttals.First of all, I did not drop any of my opponent's argument, and to claim that I did when I clearly stated that I would address them in my rebuttals is very misleading. Secondly, my opponent in the last round said that I "repeatedly," denoting my doing this multiple times, the word nitrate, when I meant citrate. I actually only made this typo once, so I am curious as to the intentions of my opponent for exaggerating this. I was in a rush to complete my argument as I had to leave for the day, and even told voters to vote Pro, when I completely had forgotten that I was Con. (Vote Con BTW!!)Lastly, my opponent has objected that I did not use his video to define a theory. If you read what he wrote in the first round, then it is quite clear that I was not required to do any such thing. He said that HE would referencing the video, and did not make it clear that I also did and that this would be the only way the scientific method would be defined.Now on to the rebuttalsRebuttal #1 l Dismissal of the First SentenceMy opponent has dismissed the first sentence of my definition (a very important sentence) without addressing it because it has the word "evolution" contained in it. Note, that it doesn't say, "evolution is evolution," rather it makes the defintion is a statement, "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another." As this statement is clearly valid for the purposes of this debate, I forward this as a dropped argument.In providing a statement that defines the term, it is perfectly agreeable to say "Evolution consists of..." Rebuttals #2 l Presuppositions and HypothesesMy opponent has unfortunately assumed that we are trying to recreate the theory of Evolution. Evolution is already an established theory, and it is not a "guess," so it not even relevant to formulate this particular argument against my definition. The phrase, "populations of organisms evolve," is an observation, not a prediction, a statement about what really happens in the evolution of life.Populations evolve in many different ways, for instance and perhaps the most common way is from geographical isolation, where a portion of a species is isolated reproductively from the rest of the species. This is called allopatric speciation, where the seperate populations may evolve new distinct characteristics due to the change in environment. This was demonstrated in experiment when Lenki's E. coli had a population separated from the others, gain the ability of metabolizing citrate. Which would lead Feynman's test as being valid, which he after all did agree that Evolution was a valid theory.Again, my opponent fails to recognize the kind of statement my definition is. It is not a "guess" or "prediction," it is an observation about how Evolution works. The phrase, "individual organisms do not evolve," is a statement about the nature of how evolution works, namely that it works through populations of organisms not individuals.Moving on to your 3rd round.Rebuttal #3 l Lenski's ExperimentIt was actually the population called Ara-3 that evolved, and you have demonstrated your inability to understand my definition with this objection. Evolutionary change is brought about through populations evolving, not individuals. Of course that population is made up of individuals, but that is beside the point. Pro is simply trying to twist words and create a straw man argument in order to win this debate.Rebuttal #4 l On the subject of SpeciesAnother attempt that Pro makes to discredit evolution is by attempting to dismantle the distinctions between species. He attempts to accomplish this by pretending that scientists are not already aware of this issue, Darwin himself was aware of this issue and said so in On the Origin of Species."I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties"[1]While this is often true, scientists go into a great deal of trouble to determine these distinctions, especially since Darwin's time. Most of the time species are unable to interbreed, but there are specific instances where the genetic makeup of organisms allows for reproductive capabilities when these species come into contact.This also is evidence for evolution, as it creates a new hybrid with unique genetic information and is a powerful tool for speciation. A popular example would be the Liger, which is the hybrid of a lion and tiger, two distinct species of the same genus, but are still capable of mating.Pictured Below: Often these distinctions are quite easy to make, and a child can understand the difference between a horse and a pig. My appeal to the fossil evidence is valid because of the fact that there are indeed clear distinctions that we can make between species, desipte that there are instances where it is more difficult. This difficulty would naturally arise if one understood that all life had a common ancestry. The species classificication is not a useless distinction, albiet difficult at times, and this is simply another instance of my opponent attempting to play semantic games to discredit the credible evidence for evolution.Rebuttal #5 l Heritable VariationsSince Pro has repeatedly ignored and dismissed my first sentence, he doesn't appear to recognize that the DNA evidence is related to the first sentence of my definition. That heritable variations, meaning variations in genetic information passed along in reproduction, leave evidence. For instance, one can perform a DNA test to determine if someone is their parent, and this demonstrates that DNA reveals relationship. As we have 98.8% of our DNA in common with Chimpanzees, this doesn't just reveal that they, "look like us," but that they as a species are related to us. Specifically, that they have a common ancestry with us, that is further demonstrated by the fossil evidence for the emergence of bi-pedal primates.Conclusion of First Round of RebuttalsIt is disappointing to see where this debate has gotten, instead of discussing the validity of the Theory of Evolution, we are now squabling over definitions. If I had known this would have been my opponent's tactic to win the debate, I would have never have accepted, as I wished to discuss the science behind the theory of evolution.I hope that in the last round my opponent will drop this tactic and begin discussing the substance of my remarks.Regards,TrueScotsman[1] On the Origin of Species Pg. 48