Darwin's theory of evolution.

Unfortunately it seems that my opponent has failed to understand my argument. He states, "My opponent is attacking on the mutation becoming permanent and passed on front. Citing DNA repair and redundant DNA as safeguards again mutations." I myself stated that mutations can be passed on and be either harmful or beneficial. Allow me to quote myself, "Mutations would need to be acting on germ cells at an exceptional rate to allow the rare event of genetic errors, and on top of this, these genetic errors would have to provide novel information in such a gradual way as to lead to a novel trait over many generations. Such mutations which provided piecemeal information would almost certainly be prevented from culminating into any sort of trait as redundant genes would work to correct them."Thus, while mutations can certainly be carried on to offspring, the types of gradual, information-adding mutations which would lead to specified code are highly improbable. Consider the purported evolution of birds from dinosaurs; the genotypic changes required would mean that literally millions of germ line mutations would have to act on thousands of generations of dinosaurs and transitional creatures to randomly culminate into specified genes which code for entirely novel traits such as feathers, chambered lungs, and avian nervous systems. While such a scenario is overtly improbable as stated, given what we now know about redundant genes and how they preserve genetic continuity, the claim of phylogenetic gradualism via the induction of novel genes through mutations becomes scientifically, extremely improbable. Given that a model for such a mechanism has never even been published, let alone evidence for it, phylogenetic gradualism in light of modern genetics is wishful thinking at best. With all that said, allow me to address my opponent's primary claim.Pro states, "Oddly, the redundant DNA provides supporting evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution. What redundant DNA means is the the organism can survive despite detrimental mutations. Therefore, the chances of the mutation being passed onto the next generation is increased. Think about it, without the redundant DNA the organism with the detrimental mutation would be more likely to die and not reproduce." Firstly, your cited quotation does not support your statement at all. Findings of genes which are "switched" on or off by environmental cues triggering redundant genes only supports my statement concerning the potential for many beneficial mutations to be programmed responses rather than mutations randomly conferring a beneficial trait. Regardless, your statement that redundant genes support evolution because it enables an organism to survive in spite of mutational degradation reflects your failure to understand my argument. Yes, redundant genes help an organism survive, but they do so by preserving genetic continuity and ensuring genotype robustness. This, in turn, means that slight, successive modifications are highly improbable since redundant genes will act to fix errors over many generations. Since mutations are not acting on redundant genetic information, these genes will preserve genotypes from any significant change (which in genetic terms is a very small number).Allow me to reiterate my argument: redundant genes, which constitute the vast majority of an organisms genome, and which are not the product of genes duplication, but are purely inherited genes, serve as a virtually incorruptible back up file to every actively coding gene as well as genes which are not "switched on." While this allows for variation within the bounds of the redundant genetic information, these genes prevent the induction of significant genotypic changes. While mutations are occasionally passed on to offspring, the types of mutations required by evolution are not able to occur, even if such a hypothetical mechanism was able to be modeled. Here's why====>the standard theory of evolution which describes phylogentic gradualism via natural selection acting on random genetic copying errors requires millions of mutations which add bytes of digital code over many generations that will culminate into a novel trait. While this is an improbable event in and of itself, the discovery of redundant genes astronomically increases the improbability. As corrupted genes are passed on through germ line cells, redundant genes within the organisms of each generation will work to prevent any culmination of mutations which would significantly alter a genotype. Figure 2. A very simple scheme of a small robust network comprised of A–E, where several nodes are redundant."Genes never operate alone but in redundant scale-free networks with an incredible level of buffering capacity. In a simple non-linear biological system—presented in figure 2—with nodes A through E, A may cause B, but A also causes D independent of B and C. This very simple network of only five nodes demonstrates robustness due to redundancy of B and C. If A fails to make the link with D, there are still B and C to make the connection. Extended networks composed of hundreds of interconnected proteins ensure that if one network becomes inactivated by a mutation, essential pathways will then not be shut down immediately. A network of cooperating proteins that can substitute for or bypass each other’s functions makes a biological system robust. . .In a cascade of activation and deactivation of signalling proteins, external messages are transported to the nucleus with information about what is going on outside so it can respond adequately. If one of the interactions disappears, this will not immediately disturb the balance of life. The buffering capacity present in redundant genetic networks also provides the robustness that allows living systems to propagate in time. In a linear system, one detrimental mutation would immediately disable the system as a whole: the strength of a chain is determined by its weakest link. Interacting biological networks, where parallel and converging links independently convey the same or similar information, almost never fail. The Golden Orb’s web only crumbles when an entire spoke is obliterated in a crash with a Dragonfly, an event that will hardly ever happen. Biological systems operate as a spider’s web: many interacting and interwoven nodes produce robust genetic networks and are responsible for genetic redundancy" (http://creation.com...). It is possible for harmful mutations, even ones which may confer a survival benefit, to be unchanged by redundant genes, but these are often point mutations or corruptions of relatively tiny segments of DNA. The culmination of mutations which would lead to novel traits would constitute millions of sequences of specified digital coding segments of DNA. These large segments would certainly be prohibited by redundant genes since we know from today's observations that they are actively maintaining and preserving the genome of organisms and correcting even small segments of corrupted DNA. The tombstone on the grave, as it were, of phylogentic gradualism is the fact that evolution does not require a single event of millions of random mutations culminating into a single novel traits but tens of thousands of these events all converging into a single, well-adapted organism. Whatever the scientific improbability of a single culmination event, must logically be multiplied (not statistically, but logically) by tens of thousands of times. A statistical argument can certainly be made using the information of redundant genes and complex genetic networks, but this is not such an argument. Again, I am arguing from scientific improbability based on what we know about the function of redundant genes and their preservation of the continuity of genotypes. I will gladly clear up any confusion and address any additional rebuttals in the next round.Thank you for your time and consideration of my argument. On to Pro.