Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

The Twin Nested hierarchy was challenged on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable, that no such thing as an objective hierarchy exists, that cladistics does not account for convergence and homologous structures, and that, according to a citation, complexity in evolution "could not have begun in the first place place! " First, I showed how any individual with access to already sequenced genomes and proteins can single-handedly falsify the Theory of Evolution. I provided a chart showing how for every size twin nested hierarchy, there is some number of incongruities where if they are found, Evolution has been falsified. Then, I explained how, unlike the case in cars, objective hierarchies are only possible when the analysis is on the basis of shared-derived characters, and for the rather obvious fact that cars don't actually reproduce each other, this is not possible for cars. Languages and family trees, animal or otherwise, can be classified by shared-derived characteristics, and an objective hierarchy can be arrived at with statistical significance (p value lower than 0.01). Half of con's argument was based on the assumption that cars can be classified based on shared-derived characteristics or that shared characteristics could be used to determine an objective hierarchy. THIS IS WRONG BY DEFINITION. Unless my opponent retracts this argument in his last round, he should lose just on those grounds. Next, I showed that the article con cited does not show that "complexity could not arise in the first place" and that the authors specifically say that complexity can arise, but natural selection will not favor complexity JUST BECAUSE it's complex. The articles point is: just being complex does not necessarily count as increased fitness. The fact that the authors are both in favor of common descent and wrote their papers under the assumption of common descent should also indicate that my opponent has misused the source. When asked for examples, I listed six experiments, which particular genes and proteins were sequenced in each experiment, the sample taxa or species involved, and the research goal. My opponent has refused to acknowledge the existence of these experiments because I did not outline, step for step, how each particular experiment worked. Each experiment listed could have resulted in a falsification of Evolution the same way that finding a particular amount of incongruities in the twin nested hierarchy leads to falsification. However, every single set of data analyzed pertaining to the twin nested hierarchy has results in a confirmation. There is no way to argue Evolutionary Theory is unfalsifiable without arguing that these six experiments are somehow fundamentally flawed. The only flaw my opponent could bring up was the strange argument that biological cladistics is based shared characteristics (like cars) and not shared-derived characteristics (like languages). Even if you agreed with the person beforehead, would you let someone win a debate if their most powerful argument is wrong by definition? Would you let them win if, when it is pointed out that they are wrong by definition, the person refused to acknowledge his error? You don't have to agree with Evolutionary Theory in order to vote Pro. Voting "Pro" says nothing other than the fact that in this case, someone has failed at an attempt at attacking the twin nested hierarchy. Voting "Pro" doesn't even have to mean you accept the twin nested hierarchy. All voting "pro" indicates is that, on a website about debates, you read a particular debate on biology, and one party handedly defeated the other. Likewise, you can believe Evolutionary Theory is true as the sun rising in the east, but if Con has truly shown the twin nested hierarchy to be unfalsifiable, you should vote con. Thank you for reading this debate, and I hope I've clarified some of the issues regarding the Twin Nested Hierarchy. Vote as you see fit.