Evolution Is Falsified

Thanks for your counter-rebutal, here's mine 1. Nested Hierarchy Violation In my first rebuttal I defined would constitute an example of a violation of the nested hierarchy that would refute evolution: “Any trait that would require it would arise in at least 2 instances in the same way in two completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree. Therefore, any clear violation of this tree, such as any mammal having feathers, any reptile with opposable thumbs (which developed in the common ancestor of primates) or any primate with a fatty hump (of camels) would be clear examples of this – and would therefore falsify common decent (and hence evolution).” Now, I have already detailed that the same superficial trait is not sufficient of this, because it would have to rule out convergent evolution. If you want to play the semantics game then by all means do so, but the readers will have to decide for themselves if they really think it really does fulfil what the debate topic entails “Evolution is Falsified” Now an appropriate demonstration would have been to first describe the germ-cell traits, then explain how they arose, the respective morphology and structures of the violation, and argue how this refutes evolution. Pro has failed to do this, indeed it was Con who had to explain the structures in order for anyone to understand what Pro was talking about. In my previous rebuttal, I stated that the epigenesis systems are highly conserved within species, but the preformation system is not. Which is evidence that the preformation pathway has indeed arisen in different ways in different branches of the evolutionary tree. Indeed this is to be expected, as would concergent evolutions of the eye, or convertant evolution of swimming traits between sharks and shales, A sufficient argument would have detailed these structures and shown how they could not, or at least were unlikely to arise by convergent evolution. Indeed, because the epigenesis trait is so highly conserved between different species, it would be even more likely that if only minor changes/mutations are required to cause this change in function, then it’s much more likely those same small changes/mutations would arise in the germ cell specification system than in other examples. Pro’s own reference outlines a very straightforward path for convergent evolution of this trait [10] and therefore I cannot see how this system comes remotely close to fulfilling the requirement to falsify evolution. The macroscopic example given by Pro, was given no further justification beyond the image. He provides no details of the anatomy, nor function of the two traits. In fact the ‘fatty hump’ Pro claims to be is actually the swelling of the backsides females, with the purpose of attracting mates. [11] Clearly it the anatomy and function of the camel’s and the crested black macaque are not even remotely close to being examples of a violation that would disprove evolution. 2. Fossil Record Violation I’m not sure whether Pro is attempting to use semantics to demonstrate a genuine chronological violation of the fossil record. I already rebutted this in that the archaoptryx and protarchaeoptryx are not in the same lineages, but are instead in 2 cousin clades. 2 clades that diverged, one which eventually became today’s modern bird’s and another which consists of a number of extinct flightless feathered dinosaurs, the Oviraptorosauria clade.. The only chronological violation is in name and nothing more. 3. Irreducible Complexity “Con says it's tempting to dismiss my claim because it doesn't provide evidence. However, I'd like to point out that my burden appears to be proving a negative, which is a monstrous, and unfair, task.” It was Pro who put forth the conditions for the debate, and Pro who took the BoP. I agree this is not an easy task and have given innumerable other angles of attack that would be much easier to verify. “So, as hard evidence that the eye is irreducibly complex, I present every single fossil ever uncovered: none of them demonstrate plausible transitional eye forms, but instead, only fully-formed eyes! For example, the Anomalocaris is supposedly over 500 million years old, yet has a complex, stalked eye with 16,000 lenses: “rivalling the most acute compound eyes in modern arthropods.” In contrast, the modern house fly only has about 4,000 lenses.(6) “[E]ven a conservative estimate of acuity in Anomalocaris suggests it had better resolution than most living arthropods.” That's hard evidence opposing Con's hypothesis: it's actually evidence that eyes have devolved from a complex ancestor!” I don’t think I actually need to address this as Pro has failed to demonstrate just how the eye is irreducibly complex beyond asserting. I will go 1 step further than this however. It is proposed by Nilsonn and co-worker [12] that an eye with the structural features of a fully functioning eye with lenses would have required just 400,000 years (a pessimistic estimate) to evolve incrementally. Given that our first examples of eyes appeared during the lower Cambrian period (540 Mya) it is inconceivable that these intermediate stages would be found even if they did exist. Furthermore, the eye itself is a soft tissue structure and one that would have poorly mineralized. The development of the first well-fossilizing mineral skeletons are indeed the reason why we have such few examples of fossils before the Cambrian explosion. It is also perfectly conceivable that several of the examples of the eye evolved before the Cambrian period [13], but unseen in the fossil record due to their poor fossilization properties. We do have a number of examples in today’s species of what some of the earlier stages would have looked like, for example the planarian flatforms possess an eyespot [14], a small layer of photoreceptive cells, akin to what we expect of the early eyes. Back to Pro! 10.) http://www.extavourlab.com... 11.) http://pin.primate.wisc.edu... 12.) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... 13.) http://www.sciencedirect.com... 14.) http://www.geochembio.com...