Evolution: Philosophically stupid.

For starters, Con, in round two, did not argue how my first argument was wrong. He spoke a lot about DNA, and that it is proof for macro evolution. The bump on this creature is a mutation, yes. But like a child born with a chip on his shoulder, it is not a normal condition, although the creature might make use of the bump because it has it and the creature has no other choice but to live with it. It will not evolve into anything, the creature will die, even if it did breed the chromosomes from the mother and from the mutated father with a bump will split into half giving the offspring half of the chemosynthesis from the mother and the other half from the father. So likewise if a person with two heads had a child with a person with one head, their children would not have two heads, but one. If what my opponent is saying is true, why then isn't there loads of mutations today, but rather only a very few? The occasional snake with two heads perhaps. I would also like to ask what the bump is? I can bang my head and get a bump on my head. Is that a new limb while it is there on my head? What is the difference from the bump on this creature and a bump on my head? Another criticism is, if the one limb fish did make use of this mutation over all in the species, how would it become a non fish via that bump? And why would the species even fall to its knees in sight of that bump on that one creature? How could it? You can only speculation about how one creature could affect the species since a species does not have limbs, only features. And in that distinction you have to speculate how that one creature would change the entire species, even though the species is stretched across the globe. If my pet fish was born with a lump on it's side, you would be crazy to say it was evolving a new limb. And that it will affect it's entire species. It's insane, the whole thing! The limb which my opponent describes has no immediate use, it don't make the creature swim faster, because of aerodynamics, it creates more to eat for predators, and the chances that a normal one will life to adulthood is slim, and the chances that this particular creature with a bump will make it to adulthood is even slimmer. And the chances that this particular creature would change the entire species is far beyond any possibility. This is due to that fact that the species produces normal creatures with normal bodies at a steady rate. And that it is speculating to say that one creature can affect it's entire species with a mutation that has no good over all use for it's entire species. Brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes are not defects to the human species. Affirmed. Talking about asexual creatures, give one example on how a mutation could improve the worm and what it does? A bump perhaps? Try avoiding words like possible or maybe, or probably. Such words like these are words of speculation and are not words of generalities. For example: If I rub my hand together, it will probably create heat, but in general if I rub my hands together, it will create head. Because they are not general words for things that we know are normal (we know that on general men have lungs, it is possible that we can send a man to Mars) they are words of speculation and thus are not scientific. But rather faith oriented. It is very possible that a mutation could cause an odd shape in a creature, but it is speculation to go further and say it will become a success throughout the entire species. That takes a lot of faith to believe in. The purple flower have 1/4 chances of being while is nothing new, colour doesn't affect how some acts or how it really looks. (If I am colour blind, the dog will look the same if I wasn't colour blind.) Your flower example is no different from people's different eye colours. Wings are developed in the egg or in a cocoon, never when the creature is active, moving from one place to another by it's own instinct. Give me one example of this, and you would have proved that evolution is philosophically right. Before I go further I am going to remind once again of what my philosophical theory entails. A species does not have any limbs, because a species is a abstract concept and limbs are not abstract. You cannot sense a species and say, "I sense a species, the dog species." Only by reason you can do that, but by our empirical sense you can only say, "I sense a creature, a dog." So a precise creature has limbs because a limb isn't an abstract concept like species is. And because of THIS reason, evolution is in trouble, why? Because, for evolution to work, or to occur a single creature needs to evolve a BRAND new limb to feature BRAND new features. If this were to be true, life would look awfully silly compared to what it is now. As an example, a dog evolving something that no other dog has or could possible have in any circumstance, like wings or being able to make a noise that is not a type of bark or growl. According to evolution, there are similar breeds to begin with, but over millions of year (abstract concept) breeds become less similar and in that new species evolve. However this is false because there are many breeds of dogs which all inherit the same feature of other breeds. All, on general have tails, all in general can bark and hear high pitched sounds. The example that Con presented does not consist of a new limb which has new features. But he speculates that it could and probably will have a use some time in the future which it's species will inherit some how, over millions of years of evolution. This is faith oriented. A 'mountain' of macro evolution evidence in relation to interpretation: Just like people say either, "That glass in half full." Or, "That glass is half empty." The same principle is being applied here. Interpretation is reasoned, not observed via our senses. And thus there isn't really a mountain of evidence, but rather in relation to interpretation there seems to be. Doesn't mean there is. Who can say, "The music IS too loud." And who can say, "The music IS too quiet."? No one, but one must be right, so Con submits to there be a 'mountain' of evidence, when really there isn't any. You can only reason, and believe that it is more sensual, but there is no video camera evidence. Where is the video camera evidence of evolution? For if there was, that would be a mountain of evidence. Flying squirrel: It doesn't actually fly to begin with, it spreads out it's arms which has fur covered skin which are attached to its feet. And when the squirrel falls it spreads it's limbs out to create wind resistance. And therefore it doesn't fall to it's death but rather it can jump further. It is a feature which it's breed has. Not species. But of course like even breed within the species, they share what even breed has within the species. In this case for example: The ability to climb trees or it's tail. Although features can vary, they are kept in a box also. There is a limitation to each feature, as I have said before, some insects can become resistant to some sprays, but never could they become resistant to a sledge hammer. Jawless to jaw: "It is thought that a gill arch in an agnathan [Jawless fish] became fused to its skull. The upper part of the gill support became the top jaw and the bottom part of the gill support became the bottom jaw. Embryology points to this and the arrangement of nerves in shark heads and most simple fishes shows that jaws are in line with gill arches." This is the explanation. There is one thing saying how it could be possible, and another seeing it happen. Can it happen, can I jump 10ft if I explain how, as if it were to happen? No. This is a theory, it have never been observed and thus although based on science isn't science it's self. But speculation. If Con say, it is happening, then the sentence above still haven't been observed. Con still haven't explain how my theory is wrong.