Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

I have provided enough proof that macroevolution can’t be achieved by microevolution processes. I did mention what the Conference of Chicago consisted of, check my post in round 2. Yet Con has not given any evidence to the contrary, just denial. Wisdom teeth are not functionless, but do suffer from deterioration. Previously people's diets were more rigorous with the resulting exercise of the jaw muscles producing greater jaw size and strength. Now we eat tender/prepared/softer foods (western diet) which is likely the cause. Even today in non-western societies, a greater percentage still have plenty of room. Note that this is a microevolutionary deterioration. (change is jaw size) it in no way requires gene addition or macroevolution. MALE NIPPLES… Sorry but you’re completely wrong on this part. Fetuses do NOT all begin as females and then “add” the Y chromosome in for males. At the moment of conception it is determined if the fetus is XX or XY:-In the first weeks of life, a fetus has no anatomic or hormonal sex, and only a karyotype (genes) distinguishes male from female- It does not have male or female genitals. After 6 weeks, the Y chromosome (in boys) gets stimulated, and the male genitalia develop. The definition of female is not “lacks male genitals”. My opponent has failed to provide proof of vestigial organs through macroevolution. I have shown they all have functions. Homology between platypus and birds? You keep arguing that similarities are proof for macroevolution. I’ve already discussed that they can imply multiple theories, even as proof against macroevolution. We share 90% DNA with cats (and 60% with flies), yet by your theory the last common ancestor we shared with them was millions of years ago (which was much less similar in DNA). So, by your theory, during a period of time, each species independently evolved a common genome through UNcommon ancestry. Therefore genome similarities are contradictory for your case. Even from your point of view, they don’t necessarily imply common ancestry. Also, your argument is only an inferential argument, not empirical, experimental or observable, therefore, even if it were valid, can’t be proof. Gene Duplication: I strongly suggest that readers look back on Cons response to this. In my previous post, I exposed the 2 main problems with this. Con has ignored them and not addressed them at all. He did not even explain how organisms can get new genes. Instead, he only said: ” The DNA did not have that information to begin with. DNA grows in a very slow way. In the form of harmful additions, positive additions, etc” This says nothing. You are claiming, only claiming. No evidence, no sustent. Seems to me like a careless copy and paste. It was very clear that you needed to explain HOW. How do new genes arise? If you wanted to mention gene duplication again, you also had to address the 2 main problems with it. You didn’t. Gene duplication is just going in circles, it doesn’t explain new genes. You have yet to give an answer explaining any viable method for the origin of new genes. Your “bottom up” design comment is based on circular reasoning, it assumes macroevolution happened. And a creator can’t have a creator (or beginning) if he is outside of the dimension of time (and space), but that is off topic. Cambrian Explosion: I did not say there were no pre-cambrian fossils, but that they do not account for the transition of the Cambrian Explosion. There’s a reason this era is called an explosion. This is the view held my most scientists: Even Richard Dawkins, practically the most famous macroevolutionary activist today agrees. The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. To be sure, there are fossils in older strata, but they are either very small or their relationships to the living fauna are highly contentious “…the branches, large as well as small, are cryptogenetic (cannot be traced into ancestors)…” Behe Finally, I had waited too many rounds for you to discuss Behe’s argument. I see you did mention the critique of Miller. Let me begin: Apparently you have misunderstood. Behe never said that. Behe never argued for the K76T mutation being impossible. In fact, it had happened before Behe did experiments with it. His objective was demonstrating the limits of evolution, by testing its mutation probability and function requirements. Con claimed:Behe was dead wrong about it being “strongly deleterious.” In fact, it seems to have no effect on transport activity at all. Miller´s critique of Behe’s experiment has been analyzed and shown to be very erroneous and misleading. “the very paper to which Miller is referring -- shows that one variant of PfCRT (dubbed "D39") with a particular mutation (N75E) has no chloroquine transport activity. When the K76T mutation is added to it to make a double mutant (variant D32), it gains such activity “Summers did not even try to test whether the K76T mutation is deleterious. The word doesn't even appear in their paper.” To test if a certain mutation were itself "strongly deleterious" takes particular conditions. That mutation would at least have to be examined: 1) alone on the background of the wild-type sequence (that is, with no other mutations present, and 2) in the relevant organism. What Miller did was test the K76T mutation on frog eggs. NOT on malaria. “Whether a mutation has "no effect on transport activity" in frog eggs says nothing at all about whether it would be deleterious to malaria.” Why do you think Miller didn’t test it on malaria? Summers et al. did test a PfCRT variant ("D38") that had only the K76T mutation. It did not transport chloroquine, showing that multiple mutations are needed. "Summers et al: A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity, and as few as four conferred full activity. ..." "The authors did also test five PfCRT variants (encoded on plasmids) in malaria cells in the lab to see how they would affect the cells' survival in the presence of chloroquine. But all had multiple mutations -- not K76T alone" You also seem to be misunderstanding this part: “Once you get that first CCC established in a population, the odds of developing a second one are not CCC squared…” That is either completely misunderstanding or willingly evading the central argument. It probably could not develop in a stepwise manner (since the first mutation is deleterious to the malaria.) but that´s irrelevant. The next quote should clarify: “The critics were wrong from the outset. Behe's argument in The Edge of Evolution didn't dependon whether chloroquine resistance arose in a stepwise manner, or only after multiple mutations accumulated” The argument was based on the probabilities of a “2 or nothing” scenario. Side note: The headline of this debate is merely referential. I made it very clear that the debate was not about evolution but about macroevolution only. Unfortunately, my opponent has waited until the end of the debate to actually discuss my main argument that I posted from the beginning, since this is my last post I won’t be able to keep refuting any invalid claims he might make next, which is why I gave my main argument from the beginning, but my opponent had waited until the end to address it. Throughout the debate it is evident that my opponent has failed to give proof for macroevolution. All attempts were exposed as either incoherent, fundamentally flawed, incorrect, outdated or fallacious. In exchange i presented experimental evidence that macroevolution could not have happened on Earth. Sources: The Edge of Evolution. Michael Behe. 2007 http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.discovery.org... http://www.evolutionnews.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...