Evolution: The ramfications of multiple mutations And the necessity for Informatio.

And so we reach the end of the debate. Since my prior illustrations regarding probability seem to have fallen on deaf ears, I'll make one final attempt to convince my opponent of his error. Again, CON has decided merely to repeat his prior points without bothering to respond to my thorough rebuttals. Therefore, apart from a few short rebuttals and a last illustration regarding probability, I intend to use this round mainly as a summarization of the main points of the debate. ========= REBUTTALS ========= ---> "As for secondary impacts, we lower the odds to less than 0.001% to have an impact free mutation with beneficial aspects only." It's telling that CON hasn't bothered to source this, the reason being that it's blatantly false. Studies done with fruit flies (Drosophilia melanogaster) show that of the remaining 30% of mutations that aren't harmful, all are either neutral or weakly beneficial.[1] Studies done with yeast have shown that only a paltry 7% of mutations are actually harmful.[2] Moreover, my opponent has completely missed the mark: the fact that there are *any* beneficial mutations is sufficient to validate the evolutionary model. Harmful mutations will not be passed on; neutral and beneficial mutations will. ---> "You also assume that sexual reproduction slows the process of mutation." On the contrary, I stated quite clearly that sexual reproduction greatly increases the rate of evolution and gave a clear explanation why this is true. ---> "Now, if we look at the fact that most of the animals needs around 5 years to achieve a generation, we pass to 18,900,000 years to achieve a SINGLE useful trait." Without bothering to check CON's math, it's easy to see why this is false. A great deal of evolutionary change took place with very simple life forms. Many modern organisms share several traits, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how closely they are related. Once certain shared characteristics had been developed, the process of differentiation could proceed much more quickly. CON also incorrectly assumes that there is no evolutionary overlap in the development of new traits. It is not as if, say, eyes, ears, and mouths all developed separately, starting with the eyes and then proceeding to the ears, and finally on to the mouth. All three structures likely evolved more or less simultaneously. ---> Probabilities of multiple beneficial mutations Yes, CON's three sources assert that there was a symposium of mathematicians in 1966. Without access to their report, I can't offer any specific criticisms of their methods, however, I have already refuted CON's numerous assertions regarding probability ad nauseum and it is unnecessary to do so again. In spite of this, for my opponent's benefit, I will offer one final explanation to help him understand the process. Let's say the odds of having a beneficial mutation are slim -- as rare as winning the lottery. Given enough people, however, we *know* one of them will win. Because of natural selection and recombination, every organism in the population will soon have a genetic "copy" of the lottery winnings. When it comes time for the next lottery, everybody entered will already be a previous winner, there the chances that someone will win twice and thus have *two* beneficial mutations are very good.[3] ========= CASE PRO ========= C1 - Vestigial structures I have explained at length how and why these structures are useless evolutionary relics. I have offered fossil evidence of the gradual transition. The simple answer to my opponents question is *yes,* we do know for a fact that these structures serve no purpose; it is painfully obvious even to the casual observer. C2 - Observed instances of speciation Whether or not the Yellow Monkey Flower descendants represent a "cryptic species" or not is irrelevant. The point is to show that significant changes (macroevolution), caused by beneficial mutations can and do occur regularly. == CONCLUSION == I have given a great deal of evidence and logical support to my case while CON seems to be content to plagiarize others arguments and repeat himself endlessly without bothering to respond to my criticisms. For this reason, The resolution has been strongly AFFIRMED. Thank you for reading, and vote PRO! -- References -- 1. Sawyer, S.A., Parsch, J., Zhang, Z., Hartl, D.L. "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. 2007. 2. Doniger, S.W., Kim, H.S., Swain, D., et al. "A catalog of neutral and deleterious polymorphism in yeast." PLoS Genet. 4 (8): e1000183. August 2008. 3. http://www.talkorigins.org...