Theistic evolution over Darwinian evolution

Now, let me clarify what this debate is actually about. I made it very clear in round 1 that this debate will be about me showing how theistic evolution is a better explanation than Darwinian evolution and therefore the best explanation for the Origin of species. My opponent was supposed to argue and demonstrate with evidence that the origin of species could be done with mainly or purely natural forces. This included showing how universal common ancestry is true because this theory clearly rejects the idea that humans are specially created and there is greater purpose in life. CON's Sprite example:The studies I mentioned in round 3 did not just show how a particular intelligence could have created diversity and complexity, but they showed how natural selection could not have been the only or main mechanism for change. This is why invoking a "divine" intelligence is required to explain how the diversity of life originated in all situations. Even when it comes to the Prairie chicken study regarding microevolution, human intervention did not impede but restored growth of the small prairie population by introducing diversity from a larger population. What Con referenced was simply a news website that has nothing to do with my study or even the topic of discussion. In addition, when it comes to Common design versus common ancestry, Darwinian process failed to show a monphylectic tree of life. There are not millions of intermdiate fossils. Just read the study on gradualism and saltation. This is why Stephen Gould rejected gradulism and created Punctuated equilibrium to accurately reflect the fossil record. However, even puntuated equilbrium could not account for this fossil record without intelligence regarding my prairie study. . http://www.evolocus.com... CON also claims that my theory is not testable or falsiable. I am about to show how it is. .. .. . PREDICTIONS Working hypothesis: If the Universal Common Design hypothesis is true, then there should be more examples of important functions from the “alleged” bad morphological designs (like the human appendix), and the rest of the non-coding regions of the DNA should reveal real differences between apes and humans. The null hypothesis is that the Universal Common Descent hypothesis is true. This can be falsified by finding examples inside the fossil record of crossover speciation within each of the five major animal groups. If the Design Decay hypothesis is true, then research should reveal cancer and similar genetic disorders that don’t lead to survival and reproduction as examples of design decay from originally good designs as a result of second law of thermodynamics by way ofharmful mutations. Does cancer originate in higher structural features of the cell rather than in its DNA? FALSIFICATION My hypothesis, as a whole, is based on an assumption that substance-dualism is valid and true. This means if someone were able to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action "alone" by finding a region in the brain that causes mental events of intentionality, will, emotions and so on, there is no question this would falsify my theory completely. A famous scientist named Wilder Penfield conducted studies that attempted to demonstrate this but was unable to find through electrical stimulation a place in the cerebral cortex responsible for these mental properties. He concluded that substance dualism was most likely true as a result. Now, these studies are outdated and neuroscience is relatively new, so scientists may be able to falsify dualism through these experiments in the future: . http://www.custance.org... However, there is, apparently, the consensus belief amongst scientists now that the brain alone can explain free-will and decision-making according to recent updated studies on neuroscience where they found strong correlations between mental and brain events during MRI scans. The problem here is they are confusing the concept of the correlation of two events with the concept of the identity of two events. It simply does not follow from the fact that two events are correlated that they are identical. Correlation does not prove causation. There is the fact that movements of bodily limbs like arms and legs are correlated with events in the motor cortex of the brain. No one believes, however, that movements of arms and legs are identical with their causal antecedents in the brain. Thus, it is just as obvious that there is no good reason to believe that psychological events are identical with brain events simply because the two are correlated. Besides, this could easily be interpreted the other way around where the mind is using the brain as an instrument for thought and expression which would only reinforce mind-body dualism. According to David Deustch, Explanations that are "hard to vary" are considered bad explanations and therefore bad science since they are harder to falsify. This is why Penfield's experiments should be emphasized for future tests and research in order to truly demonstrate whether this theory is false. Con's previous objections 1. Francis crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, has shown how the information stored in DNA is a special kind of information called "specified complexity" or "information content" is linked to the chemical processes that enable life to exist. The design argument from information content in DNA, therefore, does not depend upon analogical reasoning since it does not depend upon assessments of degree of similarity. The argument does not depend upon the similarity of DNA to a computer program or human language, but upon the presence of an identical feature (as just defined) in both DNA and all other designed systems, languages, or artifacts described in information theory. While a computer program may be similar to DNA in many respects, and dissimilar in others, it exhibits a precise identity to DNA in its ability to store information content: . http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Quantum events actually do not take place in "absolute" nothingness, but out of a larger quantum field, which is part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events. This is why it’s not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused" nor is it consistent with the data implying the beginning of reality (unless CON wants to prove there was a quantum field). 3. In regards to Andrew Newberg's study, I specifically said that his research is ongoing. I know that the study is based on a small sampling size but it does not change the fact that its evidence of a outside force potentially interacting with the mind. I mentioned this study to show why this cause is actively involved in human affairs as well.4. Power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed, and its not the synonymous term of energy. So I agree with CON, the cosmological constant or vacuum energy is not an infinite amount of energy. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(physics) 5. Its very simple. If there's not evidence for even one other overlapping universe, how can CON base his argument on something that is not there in the first place? The fact is its an unfalsifiable hypothesis that has no place in science. Therefore, I am not required ,as CON claims, to provide an argument against the multi-verse anymore than I would with the tooth fairy. In addition, if CON wants to say that the fine-tuning constants could have happened by physical necessity, where God simply determined the conditions and allow it to run by itself. He needs to prove this as well in order to damage the theory . Right now, neither are the case. Besides, The debate is not about me proving the existence of a christian god anyhow. All the other objections Con made about the fine-tuning and the finite universe have already been addressed in round 1.