Evolution: True? (Continuation)

1. This argument has become invalid. Science is not only based on parsimony, its based on evidence. If a theory that requires two explanations has more evidence for it, we take it over a theory that that explains all but has no evidence for it. I can come up with a ridiculous overarching theory that explains 100% of if the facts but if the evidence does not point toward it we don't accept it. This argument ends up begging the question that we are already arguing, does the theory have enough evidence to make it valid. 2. These articles do not just say that we change the DNA. What we do here is create more and then change the more, creating NEW genetic information. Lets make an analogy, I have an apple. I then replicate this apple and now i have, two apples. Then I stick my apple in a machine that turns it into an orange. Where I previously had an apple, I now have an apple and an orange. That is new information if I have ever seen it. 3. Historical sciences look back into things that haven't been observed. By this argument of observation can we say that George Washington never existed? He certainly was not observed by anybody alive at the time. And as for remaining a bacteria for 2 billion years, yes there was evolution, but it was not just the evolution you want to see. Changes occurred in small ways, absorbing the mitochondria etc. The argument is about evidence. Historical science is based on evidence and ultimately thats what we have to debate and are ALREADY debating. 4. I think that the most difficult thing for us to understand is deep time. Two million years is not a short period of time. With strong enough selection pressure massive changes can and did occur in two million years. It seems that another problem here is understanding the problem of incipient stages. Let me give an example when it comes to wing evolution. People don't understand how wings could have evolved. You need hollow bones, feathers, the right anatomical structures. All these mutations and adaptations were VERY unlikely to all have occurred together for the purpose of flying however, each adaptation did not occur for the PURPOSE of flying. Evolution is blind and has no "goal" in sight. It does what it has to do for the individual only. Therefore a bird with feathers but no hollow bones was not a "badly evolved bird", it was a well evolved something else. For example its wings have been believed to have been evolved as thermoregulators and later got used for flight (1). So a digestive track that changed to develop scales was not for the purpose of developing scales because scales was not the "goal". Later however, it got co opted to be used to develop scales. 5. My opponent focused on Lucy as a transitional fossil from humans and their ancestors but ignores a large comprehensive list of fossils that indicate intermediary traits between ancestors and modern animals. Calling the links stubs does not change the fact that these fossils were found and based on anatomy alone indicate transitions. 6. That is because dolphins were originally LAND animals that evolved back into the sea. Sharks however have always been in the ocean (2). 7. Yes I can, in fact a whole family of animals called the Synapsids (3). As for the Cambrian Explosion which I have already referenced was not an explosion but merely a slow fuse. Its absolutely possible that we don't know EVERYTHING about it yet. We have a lot of good theories and some theories have more evidence than others. However, its not enough to say "We don't know everything therefore it didn't happen". Science is all about being comfortable saying "I don't know" and then going out and finding an explanation. This is often called the argument from personal incredulity. My opponent simply can't understand how it occurred therefore he says with authority it didn't occur. Its an arrogant argument and the fact is there are smarter people than both of us who understand it and will find an explanation. 8. I'd like to point out that I did not accept that animals are "irreducible". What I conceded was that some animals would die as a result of mutations that are deleterious. Only SOME of these mutations are deleterious. Other mutations are beneficial resulting in the bombardier beetle with its incredible abilities. My opponent's question reveals a bit about his understanding of evolution. I'd like to point out a key word "Who'd". That shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution because there is no WHO, only nature and no purpose. 9. The pressures of selection for traits results in whats called selection sweeps (6). So selecting for a male that has good posture results in traits for woman that are attractive to men being swept up in the genetic pull. That man produces woman who are attractive to men as well as the posture that attracts men to women. 10. My opponent accused me of changing the definition, I did not change it, I corrected my definition. Whether or not an isolated system exist is not the question, the LAW is the question. The law specifies an ISOLATED system. The earth is NOT an isolated system therefore the law does not apply. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, therefore they can only describes what normally happens based on the parameters set. If the parameters change the results can change. The solar energy is not organized information, its energy that is provided to a system with a built up self-organizing method (chlorophyll). 11. Your figure was taken from a forum post. I choose not to respond to it because I question the authority of the source. The number itself from the post was not cited correctly and therefore I can't determine if the number is valid. All species who have evolved eyes have eyes of varying complexity and different make up. The pressures that require it result in the evolution of it based on what was already available. 12. My opponent is 100% correct in saying that surveys in general are flawed. But this argument is pointless. Majority opinion and polls do not determine truth. In science, evidence is the final call. Once again this is already what we are arguing. 13. I'm not sure where the issue is here? Evolution creates new species, species go extinct. Where is the problem here? If the issue is the rate, sometimes the extinction rate changes. Global biodiversity is likely falling due to the human intervention. Before human intervention species were able to expand more quickly. Problem solved! 14. Perhaps my opponent should read the first sentence in what was cited. I will quote, "... but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began." 15. The validity of sources is important in debates. Those that were verified, I accept. With that this argument is settled. 1. This is whats called the hindsight bias. I will quote from Mark Twain "Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno." 2. If my opponent didn't know chemistry, this argument would not have been as fun! Work is already being done and we have some progress on understanding the problem of chirality (4). My opponent is appealing to problems in the evolutionary theory that haven't been worked out. Finding an issue does not destroy a whole theory. The cumulative evidence that has been found greater out weighs the bits we don't know yet. 3/4. Vestigial organs exist, little toes, appendix. These are all remnants that had different functions originally but now are used for different purposes. As for mutation mechanisms read (5). Sources are in