Creationism (con) vs Evolution (pro)

The Fossil RecordThe main point of the fossil record's sorting is that we don't find a fossil of a life form existing in the wrong geological era. Something such as a dinosaur above the K/T boundary wouldn't refute the argument. The cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is not fully determined, for this reason it could be possible for a dinosaur to live up to the Paleocene period(such as gradual extinction).Many scientists, however, dismiss the "Paleocene dinosaurs" as re-worked, that is, washed out of their original locations and then re-buried in much later sediments[1].Arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms) existed before the dinosaurs. We know that dinosaurs existed with mammals[2] and many look like modern day mammals.Con claims I straw-man creationism,however he straw-mans my argument. I never said this was predicted by creationists,as this was an argument against creationism. Creationists say fossils formed in the flood[3] and I was giving a problem with this.Con also ignores my example of an ancestor of a Cambrian creature. Furthermore my entire rebuttal to the Cambrian Explosion is just about ignored."Ripple marks show clearly that the sediment was not laid down slowly over time"" Well, then Darwin certainly made no evolutionary predictions. "No organism wholly soft can be preserved" Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, first published 1859, quote taken from p. 422 of the 6th edition, 1872 (reprinted 1902)" I did say fossilization can happen quickly. What relevance does fossilization have to evolution? Darwin was talking about fossilization[4]. This wasn't a prediction of any type of biological evolution. As I said above"If it was and if evolution is false then we would see an abundance of soft bodied fossils."Moreover,Con commits the fallacy of composition. The Composition fallacy is "Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will too"[5]"Well, then Darwin certainly made no evolutionary predictions"1.Darwin has made evolutionary predictions2.Darwin talks about fossilization3.Therefore fossilization is a prediction of evolution.The link you gave never says that fossilization has to be slow or that quick fossilization cannot occur.You're misunderstanding my last argument in the Cambrain explosion section. It was an argument against creationism based off what they teach. That fossils were formed in the flood[3],that organisms such as dinosaurs and humans coexisted[6]and a literal interpretation of Genesis[7].It's the equivalent of me wanting a conduct point against you for claiming that the Cambrian fossils have no evolutionary ancestors without citing a pro-evolution source.Chromosome fusionWe do find similarities as I said in my opening arguments. Why would we have virtually the same genetic layout just because we're in the same claude? Can you give a source on this prediction?"Pro gives the irrational argument that the telomere and centromere has nonfunctional regions that were removed. Now he commits an argument to silence. The fact is that there is no "remnants."As stated in my opening arguments, there are remnants and they match with chimps[8][9]"I went to the link. No reference. Mostly ad hominem by Meyers."The reference to this is herehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...I'm not saying he didn't ad hominem,but Myers didn't "mostly" ad hominem. He called the author crazy,ignorant and incompetent, yet these are very short and don't take up most of the article."He knows, however, as do Bergman, that that portion is degenerate. So he proceeds to ignore evolutionary predictions made in the past, "Can you give a source saying this portion was predicted to be something else other than degenerate. Even if it was a prediction made in the past,shouldn't Bergman be focusing on what more recent papers say?"Meyers ignored that, and goes on an ad hominem against Bergman. He proceeds to cite the totally unrealistic analogy of a car crash. That was a total Red Herring."Myers just called Bergman's expectation "unrealistic". Myers didn't insult Bergman here. How is the car analogy unrealistic and a red herring?ERVsThe post did acknowledge that there exists functional components of ervs. Yes there are transcriptional contribution of LTRs to genes' promoters.1) Not only are most ERVs not at a loci that even makes it possible for them to contribute to transcriptional activity, but most ERVs have recombined into solo LTRs. Since only the LTRs of active full-length ERVs can contribute [10], even most ERVs in the right position have no effect. Just as with enJSRVs, these ERVs represent a very small percentage of the whole.2) The actual genes of these ERVs contribute nothing—only their promoter sequence-rich LTRs do. Again, just as with enJSRVs, these are examples of functional ERV components, rather than functional ERVs.It is the same with every case observed; again, there are no "functional ERVs;" only a small percentage of ERVs with functional components.But it's a moot point, because we know that ERVs are insertions:The hallmark of an insertion is a displacement of chromosomal DNA, and the hallmark of insertion by integrase is the presents of target site duplication, due to the way it attacks the 5' and 3' phosphodiester bonds with an offset of a few base pairs [11]. Since full-length ERVs are accompanied by target site duplications and DNA displacement, they are necessarily endogenized/fixed proviral insertions.So any functional components are necessarily post-insertion exaptations, and the fact that they are necessarily insertion means that they can not be part of any 'original design.' The issue of functionality is simply a red herring, when discussing how ERVs necessitate common ancestry.For an understanding of scaffolding (p.365-366) and exaptation (p.361-363), including various "paths to exaptation," refer to the first half (p.358-366) of "The Evolution of Complex Organs" by Dr. Gregory (2008).[12][13]" This is first of all an argument to silence, as there is no reference to which I can check it out. Secondly, disease such as HIV is caused by observable infection, not by some unknown ERV that has been incorporated into the genome."There was a source. In the rich text it picked up on it,but when it posted it didn't make it a linkhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..."According to a study published in 2005, no HERVs capable of replication had been identified; all appeared to be defective, containing major deletions or nonsense mutations. This is because most HERVs are merely traces of original viruses, having first integrated millions of years ago."[14]"Which view causes cognitive dissonance."How is that relevant?" I find fault first of all with Pro"s use of wikipedia (WP) as a credible source alongside blogs. Both are not credible as neither is peer-reviewed and Wp even has a non-credible source policy."This is a good example of the conformation bias. WP cites their claims and the bloggers are very experienced in their fields of science. I wasn't going to go after con's sources,but creation.com is not peer-reviewed in fact the argue against peer review.[15]"I find fault with Pro"s use of sources that has no references which would enable me to further my own research into the matter."Many of the sources do include a "further reading" section"I find fault with Pro"s making up claims for creationists"This was a misunderstanding of what I said.Conclusion:Con hasn't met his BOP.Con's refutations do not stand.Con straw-mans evolution, going after fossilization.Con ignored my arguments against the flood sorting the fossils.Vote ProSources[1]http://tny.cz...