Evolution isn't supported with scientific evidence (4)

Although Con has forfeited in Round 2, I have allowed him extra time to write and finish his argument which can be found here: https://docs.google.com... I will be referring to the document in that link during my argument. I apologize for the inconvenience, and I hope Con knows that he may get deducted points during voting for improper conduct. Mutations Con seems to misunderstand my stance on mutations. In my Round 2 argument, I never said that all mutations are inherently harmful. Nor did I accuse Con of stating that all mutations are inherently beneficial. I did say that mutations never add beneficial information to the genome, meaning that all mutations are either harmful or neutral (actually neutral mutations are still damaging to the genome but are either too minor to be detected or are not expressed and are hence neutral regarding the phenotype of the organism). Con is therefore strawmanning my position. Con attacks my analogies comparing the DNA code to machines because machines can’t replicate, aren’t made of cells, etc. He has completely missed the point of the comparison. The idea being conveyed was that genes and traits are delicately interweaved with each other, such that one gene could affect many traits and one trait could be affected by many genes. They coordinate and work together in the same way the parts of a machine would. Adding an aimless change into this carefully interlaced system would not be expected to improve it, which is why mutations that enhance the genome have never been observed. Whether or not a machine can reproduce is irrelevant since Con has not addressed the point of the analogy. Con attacks the fruit fly experiments I described, saying that mutations induced by radiation were more unstable and likely to be harmful than natural mutations. He says “Hereditary [natural] mutations… prove more stable in their precision for singular traits to be affected than induced mutations in provided experiment”. This is a poor argument. As I have said before, genes and their expressions as phenotypes are all integrated together and one trait is usually controlled by many different genes. In a simpler system where one gene codes for one trait, another codes for another different trait, and so on, changing a single characteristic via mutation would be easier since genes are independent from each other. But in the complicated network that exists in the genome, changing one gene would randomly affect many other genes, traits, proteins etc. No matter how a mutation is induced, it will always be deleterious to the genome. (http://www.icr.org...) I will now refute the examples Con gave of mutations that have been observed to add beneficial information. Skin Colors: Although Con explains how different skin tones would have advantages and disadvantages in certain environments, he is assuming that different skin colors arose due to mutations. The source he gave only explained a theory of why skin colors evolved, but never proved that they came about via mutations. From a Creation perspective, the different variations of skin colors were probably already in the gene pools of humans when they were first created. AI Milano: AI Milano, a mutant form of a protein that assembles high density lipoproteins, can act as an antioxidant. However, the mutation has sacrificed information as it is not as good as doing what it is supposed to. In fact, 70% of the proteins synthesized by AI Milano bind together in pairs, reducing their usefulness. More information in the source below. (http://creation.com...) CCR5 Mutation: The CCR5 receptor’s job is to allow chemokines, or signaling proteins, into cells. However, the HIV virus also enters cells via the CCR5 receptor. So when a mutation damages certain genes, crippling the receptor so that it no longer functions, the carrier of the mutation will be resistant to HIV. However the beneficial outcomes were still the results of a loss of information in the genome. In my Round 2 argument (fourth paragraph) I stated that beneficial mutations exist, but beneficial mutations that add genetic information don’t. I challenged Con to give examples of the latter. (http://www.pnas.org...) Giraffe Neck: Con claims that the giraffe’s long neck is due to a mutation. We haven’t observed this but Con states that transitional fossils confirm it. Since he only gave 3 transitional fossils in his Round 1 argument, none of which had to do with giraffe evolution, adding more now would be violating the debate structure set in Round 1. Therefore this example is not valid. Evolution Hasn’t Happened Con’s response to my similarities rebuttal is a bit confusing and I’m having trouble understanding it. I will attempt to refute his claims from what I can get out of his writing. Con says “Similarity in creationism has no explanation… “, when I have given a perfectly reasonable explanation in my Round 2 argument: a common designer. I even gave quotes and analogies to support my argument. Con argues that I haven’t explained differentiation, but I don’t there is a need for me to explain it. Animals are different because they aren’t all exactly the same. In fact, I think differentiation would be more of a problem for the evolutionist. Because if similarity is always applied to being the result of common ancestry, then many times similarities would disprove evolution. For example, the eye of the octopus is much more similar to the human eye than it is to the eyes of fish. Does this mean that humans are more closely related to octopi than fish are? (https://answersingenesis.org...) Con next gets into the topic of interbreeding. I think Con has misunderstood my position. I don’t believe in fixity of species, I believe in fixity of Genesis created kinds. If two animals can produce offspring, they are the same kind of animal (although that is not necessarily to say that if two animals can’t interbreed, they aren’t the same kind). As for similar animals not being able to breed, that can occur due to mutation and diversification. In Round 2, I explained that Archaeopteryx was just a bird. It had modern bird feathers, asymmetrical wings (designed for flight), perching feet, hollow bones, and many more features indicating it was a flying bird. Additionally, nothing in its anatomy was holding Archaeopteryx back from flying. I have explained in my last argument that supposedly reptilian features in Archaeopteryx are not exclusive to reptiles and can be found in birds as well. Con has not rebutted these explanations, but has instead argued that Archaeopteryx has a tail. I will point out that all birds have tails (tail feathers) which they use to help balance their weight and control flight. The Long-tailed Widowbird has is an example of a bird with an extremely long tail compared to its body size, much like Archaeopteryx. In the last round, I showed that fossils of modern birds have been found in strata below Archaeopteryx. Con, in response to this, has said “Rock layers are commonly prone to deformities… farther down is irrelevant.” This is not an adequate explanation, as according to uniformitarian and evolutionary geology, rocks farther down the Geologic Column should always the older than the ones above them. And Con hasn’t described how a “deformity” could cause modern bird fossils to drop down below Archaeopteryx by (supposedly) 75 million years of strata. (https://www.icr.org...) Con responds to my rebuttal of Phosphatherium as an intermediate by saying “[Phosphatherium] Is a starting lineage fossil… Succeeding fossils include eritherium, divergence in the mastodon line… “ I take it that Con has conceded his claim concerning Phosphatherium since he has not addressed my refutation of it and has instead brought up new fossils. This would be violation of the debate structure since I made it clear that no new evidences/arguments were to be introduced after Round 1 (unless I requested of him to do so). Thus I will ignore eritherium and all the rest. (http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu...) As for Miacis, Con states “Uncontested/Dropped: Lack of Attack”. This is not true, as I have attacked Miacis in Round 2. All Miacis proves is that a weasel-like creature went extinct. An intermediate is supposed to be an animal that is in the process of evolving from one kind of animal to another. Since I couldn’t find any features that indicate that Miacis was an intermediate, I asked for Con to show some. Since Con has not done so, Miacis is no longer a valid argument (because if Con shows transitional features in his next argument, I won’t be able to rebut them). (http://www.britannica.com...) Lastly, Con asserts that the coccyx is still a “leftover” from evolution. He states that humans have tails during embryo development. This is not true, as the “tail” that Con speaks of is just an enlargement of the spinal column so that nerves in the spine can send signals to muscles, organs, and limbs to grow. Con asserts that the coccyx only serves as an attachment point for muscles before the coccyx fuses. Even if this were correct, that would mean that the coccyx still performs a function for around 40 years, meaning that it can’t be useless, and thus can’t be proof of evolution. (http://www.healthline.com...) Sources: Listed throughout argument (Sorry if my argument seems a bit rushed and incomplete; I was very busy and didn’t have much time to work on it.)