Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Thanks, Pro.Burden of ProofMy opponent argues that I am responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. This is incorrect. As my opponent's own source states, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." As it is my opponent, not myself, who is asserting a claim in this debate (this claim can be found in the debate resolution- "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts") it is my opponent who will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. As such, if he wants to win this debate, he needs to provide some sort of justification to support his asserted claim that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". Until he is able to provide such justification, he cannot win the debate.Rebuttal"The first link assumes evolution happened, which is what we are debating here."Throughout the debate, my opponent has asserted that additive mutations have never been observed. In response to my listing well-known additive mutations (changes in bone density, malaria resistance, lactose intolerance), my opponent merely states that I am assuming evolution happened. This is false. Even if my opponent is correct (which I don't for a second think that he is) and evolution did not occur, the fact remains that there have been observed additive mutations, which refutes my opponent's assertion that such mutations have never been observed. Evolution is not a necessary "assumption" for the observation of additive mutations; these observations are independent."The second link describes malaria resistance which is a loss of function mutation"There is no reason to think that loss of function mutations are not additive so long as the function that is being lost in these mutations was disadvantageous, as is clearly the case in the malaria example."which describes the gene that turns off the lactase production as being damaged which allows humans to continue to process lactase long after its healthy to do so"Additive mutations by definition are mutations that increase reproductive fitness. This means that the mutation increases the probability of successful reproduction. If this same mutation had later benefits (after the reproductive stage) that were harmful, it would remain an additive mutation, as there is no "fitness" after the reproductive stage. All that matters in terms of additive mutations is that fitness (which entails that the individual in question is before or at the stage of reproduction) is enhanced."If you were to actually refute the science then you might have the upper hand"Unfortunately, you haven't presented me with any "science" to refute."I could just as easily claim that the opponents sources aren't valid"No, you couldn't. Your sources consist entirely of biased creationist websites whereas mine consist of unbiased academic references. The difference in credibility could not possibly be more evident."What happened here is people rejected the traditional data and made up another idea, unsubstantiated by any real science, and then built on that idea with everything else and like a house of cards when you remove one of the cards the whole thing comes tumbling down."Funny enough, this would make a lot more sense if you were referring to creationism."Just based on basic logic we should come to the conclusion that most if not all layers of strata were put down simultaneously"In what sense can this "conclusion" possibly be considered "basic logic"?"If all we every find are neutral and harmful mutations and additive mutations are precluded by all of the systems in place to stop them, then we can safely say that evolution could not happen."Neutral and harmful mutations are not "all we find". As I have shown throughout the debate, there are numerous examples of additive mutations."Convergent evolution is not about exact DNA matches"If you have an exact DNA match then the two organisms are clearly direct relatives, and there would be no need for convergent evolution. How is this supposed to be an argument against the existence of convergent evolution?SummaryMy opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof. He has not succeeded in providing any sort of justification for his assertion that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". My opponent clearly uses circular reasoning; arguing for a creationist position by appealing to creationist sources which are universally rejected. Until we are provided with unbiased "scientific facts" to show that "evolution has been proved false", we can reasonably conclude that my opponent has failed to show his assertion made in the debate resolution to be true.SourcesAgain, I ask readers to consider the credibility of both my opponent's sources and my own sources. Please note that each of my opponent's sources that he uses to reference support for his positions come from biased creationist websites, whereas each of my sources are academic. Thank you.