The scientific evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming.

refutation My opponent uses an ill-informed argument which has been refuted by documented experiments time and time again. This is central to arguments against creation and instead of being supported by biology research papers, it is asserted. The concept 'they don't create anything new' or 'they don't add information' is weak for two reasons. "It ignores what mutations exactly do. The every fibre of natural selection " No one who proposes this argument every defines information for a coherent understanding. What I take information is be is 'adding genetic coding which performs an action which otherwise was not present in the organism'. The Lenski experiment is a perfect example of a mutation on a genetic level 'adding information' or to use actual biology terminology, the added mutation is a random variable which gives the organism a beneficial edge in survival by allowing it to perform a new action. This new action is being able to absorb citrate, which previously it was unable to do. The mutation arises in the population randomly. It is selected due to it allowing better survival over others and it is preserved. As we know with the Shannon-Weaver information theory random noise maximises information. This citrate mutation is not even a single mutation, it had been observed by Lenski and Zackary Blount that almost 3 other secondary mutations had risen to set the scene for this major evolutionary mutation. This is otherwise known as Epistatis. This is powerful evidence for the extreme precision of natural selection and its ability to evolve organisms better suited to their environments. Here is a second example one which I will only briefly mention. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000) Regardless this argument is tired and shows a serious lack of knowledge in contemporary fields of evolutionary biology. 'They never become a new species.' My opponent clearly does not understand what this experiment actually conveys, to expect a new species you would need far longer and things like geographical isolation and various other things which you do not get in a controlled experiment like this one. His argument is very basic, he wishes to see species evolve before his eyes, if that does not occur then evolution cannot be true. He fails to see the exact and detailed observations of natural selection with huge mutations like the E. Coli ones show. These are the blocks for evolutionary development. His interchanging use of 'species, kinds and even entire organism groups like bacteria show another misplaced objection to our experiment. Not to mention my experiment deals with genetic mutations specifically, he did not ask me to present any evidence for large scale changes over long lengths of time, which I will do now. As I have already stated evolution is supported from many fields in biology. 'they certainly won"t fare better in the confusion of the wild' and 'It"s unscientific and unreasonable to use the small changes that are observable'. For one speciation is the wild is far more probable than in the lab, this is easily displayed with things like predation, intricate struggles for survival, geological distribution and geographical isolation. There is actually a far higher chance of speciation in the wild than in a lab condition, which was testing for mutations primarily not speciation. Not only did the experiment prove natural selection but my opponent is maintaining objections which don't even challenge the core premise. E. Coli evolving the ability to absorb a new nutrient which is could not previously do is not a 'small' change either. It is quite a big evolutionary trait which has occurred. My opponent creates a false dilemma argument, making me defend an experiment I did not choose to defend, in doing so he ignores my experiment which I presented and prefers to target another one which I did not. This is a red herring fallacy which is not convincing. The beautiful geological record of human ancestry is evidence of human evolution, to use that as an argument against mutations makes very little sense. To cite just one paper http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu... regarding a minute aspect of human evolution displays my opponents lack of knowledge on this area, and instead of detailing his objections he makes wild stabs and hopes to place them together in some coherent argument. Here is a second paper detailing human evolution on a genetic level also. http://www.pnas.org... These are not rare nor are they refuted. These are the collectives workings of scientists in their field, which get a complete oversight in this argument. Human evolution Even the fossil record of human evolution is coherent and has been examined by men and women with years of training in their respective fields. We have fossils of homo georgicus , AL 444-2, Mrs Ples, Twiggy, KNM ER 1813 and KNM ER 1470. From Australopithecus habilis, homo habilis, Australopithecus rudofensis and Homo Erectus. A beautiful chain of evolutionary forms, transitioning from one to another. What is the link we observe? An almost identical chain of advancing evolutionary forms, just like our advancing evolutionary bacteria, becoming more suited to their environments. Developing more complex structures over vast amounts of time. In humans brain development and bi-pedal movement, and precision grip. In the bacteria they grew larger in size, became more efficient in obtaining nutrients and even in one example evolved the ability to absorb a completely new nutrient. What is the driving force for both these? Natural selection. Where is the detailed evidence for mutations occurring? In Lenski's experiment and in plenty others, I even mentioned a second but the evidence is plentiful in the first experiment. Also where is the speciation that he requests? In our chain of evolutionary forms in humans. Misunderstanding of Lenski's experiment In regard to Lenski"s experiment, I"d like to ask how they know that that the genes for consuming citrate were not already recessive traits in the bacteria? No they were not recessive traits. Recessive traits would have been observed on a genetic level is they were pre-existing in the bacteria. The recessive trait is only suppressed if a dominant allele is present. There was no recessive trait and there was no genetic code for the absorption of Citrate. My opponent I am afraid did not take time to research the experiment, he stated E. Coli is able to utilize citrate under anaerobic conditions. Well if he had taken the time to research the experiment one of the things mentioned is that the E. Coli are in water the entire time they are in the flasks. Meaning his objection is just a failure to read the details. Beneficial mutations 'base excision repair, (3) a mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system, Not a single one of these refutes or contradicts Lenski's observations that the bacteria consistently evolved traits and morphological and genetic abilities due to mutations. The concept mutations occur is one which almost no one disagrees with, the second objection that most mutation that bad, does not refute the claim some are good. For the claim some are good, I have given plenty of examples of good mutations. This is simply me having to re state my point again. Just to list even two quick examples of random beneficial mutations arising again, here is two. (1) Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas and Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. (2) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast I have also added the peer reviewed assessment of this claim. Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73. Misconception about what evolution is Behe's book has been reviewed as being ignorant of scientific facts and basic evolutionary concepts. No one is arguing that giant leaps are happening before our eyes. Like I stated at the very beginning of our debate. These are minor, adaptive and accumulated genetic mutations which benefit the organism. Your belief that evolutionary theory thinks 'fax machines become radios' in genetic leaps of that size in organisms is just plain false. Science makes predictions and carries out tests and experiments to observe those predictions coming true. Evolutionary theory has made plenty of predictions, including the geological record which cannot be accounted for on any other model, or geographical distribution which has no other alternative theory of explanation. There is not a single plausible explanation for why see simpler organisms lower down in the different strata's, while we see more complex beings further to the top. Secondly no other explanation can explain why we see animals distributed in the order we see them now, with our evolutionary model, the evidence is exactly how the theory predicts. My opponent compares intelligence with or 'complexity' with an intelligent mind. Why does he/she feel that connection is needed? he has provided no evidence that (1) Minds are the only source of information. Unfortunately I have run out of space. In my third rebuttal I will focus on the last of my opponents objections My opponent challenged me on speciation and ID hypothesis which I will also talk about. In my third rebuttal I will discuss in length human evolution and whale evolution, I will also cite my sources for this round.