It is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution

As an anthropology student, interested in human evolution, I have some education in this subject. I will attempt to show that any reasonable person should accept the theory of evolution. I will note that my opponent's challenge to convince him of evolution will not be attempted. It is irrelevant to the debate, and likely impossible considering my opponent's positions. As per the resolution, I will simply show that a reasonable person should accept the theory of evolution. INTRODUCTION What should a reasonable person look for when they decide whether to accept something? I propose four criteria: 1. Large amount of supporting evidence. 2. Subjected to investigation through three channels: time, quality, and quantity. Meaning: it should be investigated for a reasonable amount of time, deeply by experts, and finally by a large number of people. This does not need to be one group, in fact it should not be. Investigation of weak areas should reveal either no real harm to the theory or confirm the theory. If evidence against the theory exists, it should be well-investigated and weak in comparison to supporting evidence. 3. The theory matches up well with what it should be expected to fit. If the theory is true, you should be able to use it to make predictions about evidence and results. This is a major way in which scientists test theories. 4. Lack of a better theory. The theory itself might not be 100% true, but if it holds up fairly well, it is the best theory to accept until there arises a better one. In addition, it helps if relevant experts support the theory in addition to the above. This alone does not make a theory more or less true, but can support a theory which has met the four criteria or which an individual does not have enough knowledge about. And that brings me to a fifth (or sixth, if you count expert approval) criteria: If the issue is complex and the individual does not understand it fully, the reasonable thing to do would be to trust the judgment of those who understand it. So, if a theory were to be tested by the four basic requirements, it should get about a "B" at the least. WHAT IS EVOLUTION? Evolution is "descent with modification". This includes "changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next" and "the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations". [1] Note that the starting point from which evolution begins changing gene frequency and splitting species can be anything. Evolution could have begun after godless abiogenesis, or after supernatural creation. For example, scientists could be wrong about when evolution began, but that would not affect the credibility of evolution itself happening. Note: my opponent accepts "microevolution", ie changes in gene frequency over generations, just not evolution to the point of speciation. Unless he chooses to challenge microevolution (which would be a pointless endeavor) I will focus on "macroevolution", and consider half of my resolution pre-proven. It is up to me to prove the other half. We must also distinguish between the broad concept of evolution and the mechanisms of it. Evolution happens. How it happens is always under study. Disproving a mechanism does not disprove evolution itself. FIRST CRITERIA - EVIDENCE Evolution is well supported by evidence gathered from multiple fields of study: fossils, comparative anatomy, time and space distribution, computer simulations, and observation. [2][3][4][5][6][7] "Evolutionary biology is a strong and vigorous field of science. A theoretical framework that encompasses several basic mechanisms is consistent with the patterns seen in nature; and there is abundant evidence demonstrating the action of these mechanisms as well as their contributions to nature. Hence, evolution is both a theory and a set of established facts that the theory explains. " CRITERIA TWO - INVESTIGATION The scientific community considers something a "theory" when it has, you guessed it, met the four above criteria. The scientific community, with a vast many years of experience and education that no layperson can match, has compiled the evidence, peer-reviewed it, tested it, tested it's predictions, and tried to come up with better theories. [11][12] CRITERIA THREE - FITS PREDICTIONS The mark of a good theory is that, if the theory is true, it can be used to correctly predict results. The theory of evolution has met this test time and time again. It successfully predicts results in everything from fossils to psychology. [9][10][13] CRITERIA FOUR - NOTHING BETTER Can my opponent name a better theory? ETC DNA mutations can produce new information. [14] Scientists overwhelmingly agree with evolution, including even religious scientists. Scientific support for evolution is "essentially universal". U. S. courts have consistently ruled that evolution should be taught. [8] In order to make a case against evolution, intelligent design/creationism proponents have to redefine science, trick the public, and team up with Islamic fundamentalists. [15] The eye, a common argument against evolution, has a simple evolution. [16][17][19] Even a clock could theoretically evolve. [18] SOURCES If the sources do not display correctly, I will place a copy in the Comments section of this debate. 1. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 3. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://goo.gl... 6. . http://www.actionbioscience.org... 7. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 10. . http://chem.tufts.edu... 11. . http://www.religioustolerance.org... 12. . http://humanorigins.si.edu... 13. The Moral Animal 14. . http://www.newscientist.com... 15. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 16. . http://www.pbs.org... 17. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 18. (. http://www.youtube.com...) 19. . http://video.google.com... #