Evolution

I am addressing 16,000 characters of argument in 8,000 so I'll dive right in. I. Genetics Con grossly overestimates the actual difference between a bacterium and a fish. The majority of the differences are in how the cells organize and what genes they express. A given protein or enzyme is very small compared to the overall genome, and the information I provided about the origin of life points to the conclusion parts of the genetic code formed independently rather than in sequence. A bacterium does not evolve into a fish solely as a result of random mutations in the genetic code. Natural selection favoring cooperative activity between cells and increased specialization resulted in incremental advancement toward more advanced forms of life. This is a tough concept to explain because the physical differences between organisms belie the fact that much of them arise from differ means of expressing the same genes. II. Irreducible Complexity My opponent claims that many biological structures are irreducibly complex but cites only one: the flagellum. The reducibility of the flagellum is so firmly established that it found its way into my textbook. [1] Actual scientific study has demonstrated that 50% of the flagellum is not even necessary for its function and 19 of its 21 proteins are modified versions of proteins that preform other functions. The whole structure of the flagellum is descended from a pilus-liked tube. It is in no way irreducible and indeed seems to exist quite by accident. [2] III. Abiogenesis I have already discussed abiogenesis at great length, but I will make one important point here. The argument that Con presents is formally known as Hoyle's Fallacy. Ian Musgrave addresses this exact argument in his article Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and the Probability of Abiogenesis. Creationists assume that simple chemicals directly arrange themselves into full cells and calculate these odds. Abiogenesis actually advanced slowly through small, simple increments. They also underestimate the number of molecules and the amount of time at one. Just one kilogram of amino acids contains over a billion billion molecules. You could (and scientists have) generate macromolecules from this in mere weeks. [3] IV. Cambrian Explosion This argument is based on a common misunderstanding of evolution: that it trends toward complexity. It doesn't; it trends toward efficiency. If a large number of phyla originated around the same time, it's simply because that is when life reached a point that allowed rapid expansion. Nothing in the evolutionary theory suggests that life must keep getting more complex. If fish are shaped correctly for swimming they won't evolve propellers just because they're more complex; there has to be selective pressure. [4] V. Fossil Record Con again makes the mistake of assuming that evolution argues that life trends toward complexity. It trends toward efficiency when possible and is mostly ad hoc. That is why horses have legs, not wheels. Now, the fact that there are some gaps in the fossil record is largely a product of the challenges of finding million year old bones. Still, there is considerable evidence of transitional species. The transitional species that indicate the evolution of whales from land mammals are well documented. They include the land mammal Pakicetus, a quadruped, its descendant Rodhocetus, an aquatic mammal with four smaller legs, its descendant Dorudon, a large aquatic mammal with flippers and stunted legs, and finally the modern whale with its flippers and vestigial limbs. [5] Does it not bother you at all that whales have vestigial legs and that whale-like mammals with small legs have been found to have lived millions of year ago before? Much of Con's Round 2 argument makes many of the same points over, so I will only address new claims. VI. Age of the Earth The age of the Earth has been determined to an accuracy of +/- 1%. Asteroids that formed at the same time as the Earth (at the beginning of the solar system) and have not been contaminated by geologic activity have been consistently found to be well over 4 billion years old using lead isochron dating. These methods are absolutely accepted by modern chemistry and physics; to deny them is to deny the science that brought you everything you have. Rocks on Earth have been found to be almost 4 billion years old, and contamination would most likely make them appear younger. [6] Con's source lists twenty-two different ages of the Earth, many of which differ by orders of magnitude (a tad bit more than the +/- 1% arrived by scientists). Before responding to his argument I would like to know why he finds this dating method correct and the other twenty-one wrong. VII. Creationism has Equal Explanatory Power Irrelevant. This debate is not about which theory is better on balance, it's about whether evolution is valid. It is not my responsibility to refute every possible counterargument. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could have created life, but it is not my responsibility to devote limited space to refuting a theory when it is not part of the debate and my opponent has not offered an affirmative. If my opponent would like to debate about Creationism I will do that in a debate that is actually about Creationism, it is simply not possible to fit all this in one debate. I will submit for now that evolution is more parsimonious than Creationism. Evolution only assumes the natural processes that have been observed to be true. Its ideas and premises have been determined by the most rigorous means of attaining knowledge that human civilization has ever developed. Creationism makes unneeded assumptions about a creator to explain phenomena that evolution needs to make no additional assumptions to account for. Long Conclusion: Many of my opponents arguments amount to little more than saying, "No, actually this," and referring to a source. Rather than restating myself over again and relisting my sources, I'm going to discuss Creationism and evolution directly for a moment so voters can compare the validity of two viewpoints. I will do this by making a blatant appeal to authority, because it is entirely appropriate to do so right now. Here is a list of the organizations that formerly accept evolution: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... The people who have produced actual discoveries in science are the ones who accept evolution. The supports of evolution count among themselves inventers, teachers, professors, doctors, researchers, and even many theologians. How do we know that their methods of attaining the truth work? Because they have used them to produce discoveries that have improved the human condition. What claim do Creation ‘scientists' have to be taken seriously? What has this school of thought produced for the world? Nothing. Their ‘science' has not been used to produce anything of marginal value. Their agenda is to use fake science to rationalize the mythology of ancient peoples. The people who are using science to do serious work that actually has some impact on society have rejected these ideas. If my opponent will permit me to use the comment section to save space, I will produce 10 discoveries by evolutionists for every discovery my opponent presents by a Creationist. Con's sources are not legitimate. The Creationists are a small fringe movement with an obvious agenda; they distort the truth for a living to tell uneducated people what they want to hear. The argument against evolution is an assault on natural science itself, the field of study that has created almost everything we have and discovered almost everything we know. I will agree with my opponent on one issue: it is up to the reader to weigh the evidence. Sources: [1, 2, 5] Campbell's Biology [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] Campbell's Biology [6] http://www.talkorigins.org...