Evolution: True? (Continuation)

1. OK, my opponent has accepted 2 qualifiers for science: parsimony and evidence. My opponent concedes that parsimony for competing theories is superior. The evidence we argue about in the other points, but at least one of the two qualifiers certainly falls to CON because my opponent has conceded it. 2. I can accept (for the purpose of this argument) an apple tree changing to an orange bush, because the number of DNAcids is similar. New information is not created, but rather old information is changed. I'm talking about a little single-celled creature evolving into an apple tree, with many additional pairs of chromosomes. That's a lot of extra DNA. Science does not provide a mechanism for the creation of said additional DNA - your sources only point to how DNA changes, not is created. 3. If George Washington had not been observed (which he was, very clearly, by a fuming British government) then we would have no idea whether he was alive at the time. Remember our two qualifiers for science - parsimony and evidence. We've already worked out that there is better parsimony in other theories. Here my point, to repeat, is that there is no better evidence for evolution because just as many observations support evolution as do some other theory. Therefore evolution is no more likely to be correct. 4. Let's imagine a bird with wings used as thermoregulators. Along comes a predator. Bird tries to run away. Bird slowed by ridiculous thermoregulators hanging off the side which it can't move properly because it hasn't evolved the muscles yet. Bird caught and eaten. Surely this is a greater danger to early birds compared to getting a bit chilly? In New Zealand, we have a bird, the kiwi, that has (or so we are told) "un-evolved" the ability to fly. Why? Lack of predators! There is no evolutionary advantage to NOT flying, so why would these birds have responded to a lack of predators if evolution is "blind" as you say? 5. I have focused on Lucy and other poor examples of making up fossils so as to make humans appear evolved because you asked me to. I've given two sources that state that no transitional fossils have been found, written by respected paleontologists. You've given me one source for transitional fossils, one that says it is inaccurate, that links mostly to unverified sources (definition of a stub) and that anyone can edit (likely you for the purposes of winning this debate). How can your source be more accurate than mine? 6. The dolphins as land animals theory is about 10 years old now, and has not yet been given a chance to be properly investigated. I recommend voters check out my opponent's source, particularly the (supposed) bone diagrams of the Pakicetus. Then try to explain why the head looks exactly like this one: http://blogs.discovery.com... ! A case of misplaced fossils if I ever saw one! 7. My opponent agrees that there is no good explanation for the Cambrian explosion, and calls me arrogant (note the personal attack) because I dare even bring it up. Millions of scientists have been working for 150 years to find a good explanation. So far, none has arisen. The Cambrian explosion remains fatal to evolution. 8. A deleterious mutation is no genetic advantage. Thus evolution should not allow creatures with deleterious mutations to survive. 9. These so-called selection sweeps rely on members of the opposite sex WANTING to breed with the evolved creatures. But again, who'd want to breed with a semi-evolved creature? I certainly wouldn't want to go out with a girl with half a tail. 10. Two responses. First, unless the information is organized (as you conceded), the system (Earth) is isolated. Second, the law applies here as much as in any other approximated isolated system. Why should the Earth be the one great exception to the rule? 11. See this great page: http://www.wasdarwinright.com... - apparently bacteria mutate at a rate of 1:1000,000,000, meaning chance of 100 mutations is 1 against 1000,000,000^100=1^900. Actually you're right - the forum post was too much in evolution's favor! 12. People with better evidence than us who work in the scientific field surely would know better than us. My (more accurate) survey shows 40% of American doctors accept Darwinism, meaning 60% don't. 13. The issue is the rate. I cannot accept that the rate can all be put down to human intervention. It is much easier for a species to die than evolve. 14. No, but it does SUGGEST how life began. Perhaps my opponent should read more than just the first sentence. 15. (my new argument #1) that we are the end product of evolution, that may be the hindsight bias. But that evolution was able to function in the first place, that the tower was built at all, that is not hindsight bias. 16. "Finding an issue does not destroy a whole theory." - yes it does! Newton's theories were destroyed by Einstein finding one issue. Compare that to competing theories that have no issues. 17. As I have already shown in my sources, Vestigial organs do not exist. Your assertions will not destroy years of scientific research. 18. Your source does not give a mechanism, it gives a one-sentence explanation for how mutations happen in two ways. Remember, I support micro-evolution. Yes, I can breed with a tongue-rolling female and give my child the ability to tongue-roll. But there is no mechanism for macro-evolutionary mutation. No reason why that child will have a tail. I am still very proud to be opposing this motion and will await my opponent's reply.