There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

com for replying, however I would request that FritzStammberger use sources to support his own arguments, rather than simply copying and pasting arguments from the sources. Use of cladograms in inferring common descent: My opponent's source, J Woodmorappe, claims that assuming a priori evolution is true, one could construct a cladogram showing common descent in wheeled vehicles. What my opponent's source actually assumes is that one can create an objective hierarchy for wheeled vehicles. This is false. Wheeled vehicles lack synapomorphies which can be used to infer common descent or show a nested hierarchy of traits and various traits which one could attempt to use would reveal a plethora of different nested hierarchies. Using Woodmorappe’s example, should one consider a tricycle to be closer related to a bicycle because it is a single-seat, pedal-power vehicle or to a three-wheel motorcycle because it is a single-seat, three-wheeled, better-stability-when-still vehicle? Is motorized scooter closer related to a motorcycle because it has a motor, or to a unicycle or a bicycle? More problems are encountered when attempting to organize automobiles or bicycles or trucks into their own cladogram. Because the traits being considered aren't inherited from a common ancestor, taxa show a mix of traits, not a nesting of them, and various models can be created in an attempt to organize them. Using Bayesian inference in an attempt to determine which hierarchy of wheeled vehicles is best supported by the data would suggest that common descent did not occur. Similarly, Carl Linnaeus attempted to classify minerals using a methodology similar to cladistics; however this classification was not supported by empirical data or statistical analysis because minerals are not descended from one another and his taxonomy of minerals is not accepted today. [6][7] The difference between evolution and cladograms of cars or minerals is that evolution is a Markov (random and memoryless) process whereas the design process of cars is not. Mathematical models can be used to test the correctness of phylogenetic inferences, demonstrating that evolutionary hierarchies are objective, unlike hierarchies of minerals and wheeled vehicles, and that cladistics is a valid methodology for determining kinship between taxa. The maths involved in biology conclusively support a universal common ancestor. [5][8][9] My opponent claims that synapomorphies are evidence of a common designer. However, as shown by Theobald’s article (which does not assume that homology implies common descent), synapomorphies and other evidence overwhelmingly support a universal common ancestor over creationism or alternative evolutionary explanations. [5] These criticisms also fail to address the nesting of hierarchies constructed based on different data. “If the two [molecular and morphological] phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently. ” [10] There is no limiting mechanism to evolutionary chage: All of an organism’s inheritable traits are encoded in an organism’s DNA (making up the genome). Change and variation between generations, as observed in ring species and other speciation events, arises on account of mutations in the DNA. These changes are then passed down to offspring. Ring species such as the salamanders in California show that mutations and changes in inherited traits can accumulate to genetic significance, limiting interbreeding between end species and showing demonstrable morphological differences. [11] My opponent suggests that since we haven’t directly observed change to the extent he desires (e. g. salamander to man, pig to the size of texas) that there is thus no evidence of a change in kind. My opponent must explain why changes in inheritable traits can accumulate past the species level as shown by ring species and observed in other speciation events, but cannot accumulate further with more time. The mathematics involved in biology and phylogenetics show that a universal common ancestor (and as such, nothing preventing the accumulation of changes in inherited traits past the species level) is best supported by empirical evidence. [Citations are continued from Round 1] [6] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] . http://www.sciencedirect.com...[10] . http://rana.lbl.gov...[11] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...