Evolution

On Observation of speciesThe problem with the fruit fly speciation experiment is that there was no evolution at all. All the organisms pre and post experiment stayed fruitflies. The only thing that changed in this entire experiment is the mere fact that maltose fruitflies died in one study group when not given any source of maltose and the starch fruitflies in the other study group died off when not given any starch which is what to be expected frankly whether evolutionary mechanisms are true or not. It does not take a genius let alone an experiment to figure out that some fruit flies will die off when you do not feed them the only source of food that they can intake. The Experiment started off with pre-existent diversity and there were no mutations. The only conclusion that can be logically drawn from this is that when an insect does not eat, it will die which I am not sure how it proves evolution in any way. It at best proves the least controversial evolutionary mechanism, natural selection.I think this experiment was designed more to prove natural selection. However, the logical thing to assume is that the fruitflies had some junk DNA that was activated to allow them to intake certain types of sugars. Even evolutionists agree that Junk DNA within genomes could be activated to perform certain functions (like eating certain types of sugars that you were not accustomed to). [1]On Anti-Biotic resistant BacteriaThis is a common myth perpetrated within classrooms but the real story is that antibiotic resistant genes are ancient and the bacteria took in these genes through plasmids. [2] [3] [4] If the bacteria did not evolve any new genes to resist antibiotics and actually just took in ancient antibiotic resistant genes and then used those genes to counter antibiotics during the experiment, where is the evolution?On Human Ancestral treeThe Human ancestral tree is the claim that evolutionists put forth on how humans evolved. That does not mean that is how humans got here. The claim =/= evidence and you can not use a claim to prove another claim.On NeanderthalsI have already demonstrated beyond doubt in my opening arguments that the only piece of evidence we had for the Neanderthals (a disfigured fossil) was found to be a hoax, I do not think that your claim that we can find their DNA is justified. The only way they found their DNA is by assuming evolution is true then using molecular clocks to work their way back. I can do the same with the creation narrative by working back and figuring out different genomes from Adam and eve to Nowadays. They can assume evolution is true then attempt to predict the genome of a supposed sub-species we have no evidence for but a history of hoax fossils but you are not justified since you are once again using a claim to prove the bigger claim (the agreed upon resolution).On Homo DenisovaI am actually very skeptical of this method once again. The most likely method which the scientists mapped Denisova's genome is again by assuming evolution is true then using molecular clocks to work their way back through the sub-species and Genuses and then guessing what their genome probably looked like. Again, you are not allowed to use such circular reasoning tactics. Moreover, there is no way to be certain about an extinct organism's genome unless you have at least one cell through which you can crack the nucleus and look at its chromosomes and genetic material. How exactly would they find a living cell of something which supposedly went extinct 3 million years ago?On Homo eragster and Heidelbergenesis Again, this technique of mapping out genome is flawed for two-fold:1- circular reasoning, assuming evolution is true and then guessing what the genome of a 3 million year old subspecies looked like is just arbitrary and is not enough to prove such a significant claim that you are making. 2- At best, their conclusions are guesstimates since they are ssuming what the genome could have looked like working off other Species in the Homo GenusIn order for your human anscestral evidence argument to work, you need to show that evolution is true then find a living cell with full genome and genetic material Then analyze the differences using molecular clocks to show the differences in the genomes and to show how the genomes of various species evolved from one another.On Carl Linnaeus I am afraid that my opponent is conflating two topics : Evolution (how animals evolved from one another) and taxonomy (how scientists classify different animals) [5]It should therefore be obvious that all of Pro's work in this area was merely to justify current scientific position on how species should be classified according to genus and species. I do not object that there are different species and genuses. I only object to the claim that they evolved from one another.Vestigial featuresThis is probably the worst argument because it is slowly but surely wearing out. Evolutionists started with the claim that there are over 30 vestigial features in humans. Now it is down to ... 1. Wisdom teeth. The biggest trump to this argument was that the appendix was found to house bacteria that rebooted the digestive system after diarrhea. Moreover, the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. [6] Although it should be noted that tailbones were also a major trump when they found out The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor which is critical for some sexual function and for allowing the passage of feces and urine in both males and females. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position. [7][1] https://www.scientificamerican.com...;[2] http://easweb.eas.ualberta.ca...;[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;[4] https://www.nature.com...;[5] https://www.cbd.int...;[6] https://www.scientificamerican.com...;[7] http://www.healthline.com...