Supporting evolution = pro/Against evolution = con

Thank you to CON for providing his argument. Unfortunately he has not backed up many of his claims and if you look at the facts they state the opposite of what Con claims.Darwin's FinchesCON states these are not actually different species. In fact not only are they different species, e.g. Geospiza conirostris [1] vs Geospiza difficilis [2] but some of them are different genus as well such as Pinaroloxias inornata as compared to Certhidea fusca with a change in genus representing an even greater biological difference than is found between species.CON's statement that "their beaks were just inherited traits, like blonde hair or green eyes" also seems irrelevent and - if anything - CON effectively conceding his argument. Evolution is "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". [4] Con has admitted there is a change in the heritable characteristics (beak shape) of different populations over successive generations, ergo he has admitted evolution has occured.It also seems to miss the point; the inherited characteristics of a lion (It's shape, size, colouration, behaviour, etc) are what set it apart from other species like say a mouse, whose inherited characteristics are completely different. It's kind of the entire point.Positive MutationCON states that it is impossible to have a positive mutation. He then immediately contradicts himself and instead says it is just very very unlikely for there to be a beneficial mutation. He provides no proof or reasoning for either point, just inventing made-up figures.In fact we know positive mutations occur and have observed them, both in real life and in labratory conditions.For 30 years scientists have been running a experiment on ecoli evolution as generations of bacteria propogate quickly so they can look at evolution far faster. After about 20 years the descendents of one of the batches developed a new mutation, allowing it to respire aerobically in citrate when the inability to do this is normally one of the defining features of E Coli as a species. [5] This features continued and was passed on to the descendents of that sample.In real life we have found that the deletion of a specific allele base pair confers a vastly increased resistance to HIV infection. [6]Dinosaurs to BirdsAgain CON instantly contradicts himself, going from there being no intermediate fossils to there being fossils, even referencing the Archaeopteryx as an example, but them being fakes. He provides no proof for his claims about them being fakes.Not only that but we have a wide variety of different intermediate fossils showing dinosaurs developing increasingly bird-like characteristics such as the Anchiornis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Vorona, Ichthyornis and Mei Long [7][8][9][10][11][12].Human EvolutionThe skulls of the ancestors of humanity cannot be explained by weathering as CON claims (again without evidence) - the skulls are different sizes and shapes and bones cannot be beaten into new shapes. For instance the skulls of our evolutionary ancestors from a couple of million years ago have a capacity of around 600 cubic centimetres - about half that of modern humans. [13] Weathering is the wearing away of material so weathering could not explain this difference as if it had occured (magically while the fossil is encased in rock) it would have worn away the bone and resulted in an increased skull size, not a smaller one.TimeCON states "There is no way that there were millions and billions of years" and that C14 dating only goes to 80,000 years of age. The latter claim is technically correct, but ignores the fact that C14 dating is only one form of radioactive dating and is not the kind used to look at older fossils and minerals. Radiometric datic is performed by looking at the decay of unstable radioactive isotypes. Different radioactive isotopes have different half-lives - the reason C14 can't be used after about 60,000 years is that it's half-life is around 5,000 years (e.g. that's the point at which half of the Carbon will have decayed into nitrogen). The radioactive decay is a physical constant related to the basic atomic structure of the isotopes and every specific type of isotope will decay along set time periods and after a certain point there'll be too little carbon left too tell you anything. Where that point is will vary from isotope to isotopePotassium-40 on the other hand - the kind of radiometric dating actually used in this instances, has a half-life of 1.3 billion years [15], showing that there are types of radiometric dating which work along the time periods beign considered and that the Earth is billions of years old as we have masses of samples which show radioactive decay that would take billions of years to happen.ConclusionI believe that CON's claims in and of themselves require practically rebuttal as they are entirely baseless with nothing to support them; me simply saying "You have made no claims but offered no proof or reasonign to back up your claims" would have served as an adequate rebuttal. Despite this I beleive that I have thoroughly rebutted them and done so in a manner which also shows evolution is real - afterall I've literally included examples of documented evolution in my response.[1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...[4] https://goo.gl...[5] https://goo.gl...[6] https://goo.gl...[7] https://goo.gl...[8] https://goo.gl...[9] https://goo.gl...[10] https://goo.gl...[11] https://goo.gl...[12] https://goo.gl...[13] https://goo.gl...[14] https://goo.gl...[15] https://goo.gl...