Evolution isn't supported with scientific evidence (4)

My contention is that evolution can’t happen and there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past. Evolution Can’t Happen Con starts by summarizing what evolution is and how it supposedly happens. The idea is that hereditary mutations alter the gene codes of animals, giving them different traits and characteristics. Then natural selection “weeds” out the bad mutations, leaving only the better mutated animals to reproduce. It sounds simple, but all this is based on the assumption that there are helpful mutations in the first place. Mutations are random mistakes or “typos” that occur during DNA replication. Mutations cause all sorts of diseases and deformities. No one has ever observed a mutation add new, useful information to the genome. Genes and traits are carefully interlocked with each other, such that one gene could code for many traits and one trait could be coded for by many genes. They all delicately work together in the same way the gears of a watch would. Mutations, which are random, confused errors in this machine are never beneficial. “We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. ”—J. F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1958). I want to make it clear though that when I say no mutations are beneficial or helpful, I mean that no mutations add new, beneficial information to the genome. It is true that some mutations that disrupt, destroy, or disorder certain preexisting genes can result in beneficial outcomes in certain conditions, however these mutations are not truly beneficial in regards to the level of progression of the genetic information. (. http://www.icr.org......) In the 1900’s, many scientists spent years, some even their entire lives, irradiating fruit flies, simulating mutations that would only be seen from many millions of years of mammalian generations. The mutations caused deletions, inversions, translocations, etc (what would normally be seen from naturally occurring mutations) in the DNA of the flies. These experiments were done in the hopes of proving that random mutations could add beneficial genetic information that the flies could use. The scientists observed hundreds of different mutations with hundreds of different effects on the poor flies. Not one mutation was beneficial. Flies that didn’t die from the mutations had all kinds of abnormal deformities and impairments. Here is a partial list of the results: . http://cgslab.com...; “Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations. ”—Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119. Similar experiments have been done with other plants and animals all showing that no mutations could possibly be helpful. As we have seen, a mutation will never improve an organism by increasing genetic complexity. Yet Con wants to suggest that billions upon billions of beneficial mutations, all working together, could “evolve” a macromolecule into a human. I would like for Con, in the next round, to give an example of an unequivocally beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic information. Evolution Hasn’t Happened Con first mentions the study of cladistics, used to form diagrams showing lineages of ancestral evolution based on similarities of different species. This arrangement back in time is however based on the assumption that the different animals evolved in the first place and that similarities are due to evolution. Con states that humans have a 96% genetic similarity with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, 80% with cows, etc, proving that at some point in time humans had common ancestors with all these animals. There are genetic similarities, but they in no way prove common ancestry. Similarities could be the results of a common designer. Two Microsoft programs would have thousands of similarities in their code because of a common designer. It is a fact that similarities exist. Different people can interpret this fact in different ways. The Creationist’s interpretation is that similarities exist because the same intelligent designer created all the animals. The evolutionist’s interpretation is that similarities are due to common ancestry. “If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins. ”—Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly (1923). Is Con suggesting that if Creation were true, different species would absolutely have to have completely different amino acids, proteins, cells, tissues, organs, fluids, and structures? That would be pointless and wasteful. Genetic similarities would be expected from Creation. They would also be expected from Evolution. Thus similarities can’t prove either one. And the fact that two animals may share more genetic similarity than others could be because they have more identical structures and functions than others. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with ancestral relatedness. The situation is the same with embryological similarities. It is true that embryos of different animals all look similar during development. They all start as tiny balls and gradually grow and develop different parts. However, instead of these similarities proving common descent, they could reveal that the same intelligent designer planned and devised how these embryos would start out and how they would progress. Con uses the homologous structures argument which is again based on the presumption that similarity proves relatedness. Homologous structures could be the results of either common ancestry or a common designer. A Honda Civic and a Honda Accord are different cars but have many similarities and interchangeable parts. This is due to a common designer with a common plan for both cars. Con must explain why similarities could not possibly be interpreted in other non-evolutionistic ways in order for his point to be valid. Con next mentions the fossil record, and states that fossils are dated at over 6,000 years. Of course I would argue that dating methods are inaccurate, but that is a topic for another debate. Con implies that the fossil record shows transitions between different kinds of animals expected from evolution, e. g. dinosaurs to birds. Since he has only mentioned Archaeopteryx, Phosphatherium, and Miacis, those are the ones I shall rebut and he shall defend. Although Archaeopteryx is often claimed by evolutionists to be the perfect missing link between dinosaurs and birds, this is not the case. Archaeopteryx’s hollow leg and wing bones, modern bird feathers and asymmetrical wings all indicate that it was just a bird. Evolutionists argue that Archaeopteryx has reptilian features such as teeth and claws. However, fossils of obvious birds such as Hesperornis had teeth and several modern birds such as touracos and hoatzins have clawed wings. Additionally, fossils of modern birds have been found in strata below Archaeopteryx! “Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils. ”—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46 So one option is that Archeopteryx was just a unique bird. It is also very possible that Archaeopteryx was simply a well prepared and arranged fraud used to support evolution, as Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor were. Phosphatherium, a pig-like creature, is stated by my opponent to be evidence of elephant evolution. Firstly, all fossils that have been found of Phosphatherium were a few teeth. The fact that evolutionists can then explain the animal’s entire body, face, diet, and what it evolved into should deserve at least some skepticism for obvious reasons. Here is what Phosphatherium really looked like: . https://en.wikipedia.org... Next, even if it could be certain that this pig-like animal existed, all that it would prove is that a pig-like animal existed. Extrapolating into saying that the pig changed into an elephant wouldn’t be scientific since there aren’t obvious features (at least that I have seen) that show that Phosphatherium was evolving into an elephant but not done yet. If Con disagrees and points at a transitional feature, he should show how this feature can be derived from a couple teeth that very possibly could have been weathered or damaged due to natural causes. (. http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu...) Con now points toward Miacid, an extinct weasel-like creature. Again, all this proves is that a weasel-like creature once lived and is now extinct. Many other animals have gone extinct as well. Con hasn’t provided an explanation for how he knows that this animal evolved into something else. (. http://www.britannica.com...) Lastly, Con argues that the tailbone, or coccyx is a vestigial “leftover” from evolution. He is simply wrong. The coccyx is an anchor point that connects to many muscles, ligaments, and tendons. Additionally, it helps with balance and support while sitting. (. http://www.healthline.com...) Sources: Listed throughout argument