Resolution: Evolution is an observed fact

Round Counter-title: You're not off the hook because genes are too small to resolve with our eyes As Zets said: "To prove evolution it's not enough to say here is species B-2, and two weeks later, here is species B-3. One must prove, through OBSERVATION that one evolved to another. It's the final round and you still haven't shown me evidence of anyone making an OBSERVATION of the mutation." He is taking the word "observation" literally, as in someone needs to have watched the gene with their own eyes changing. This is incredibly disingenuous, as it is extremely difficult and costly to actually image chromosomes in the process of replication and division. Furthermore all genes look the same in such imaging, so watching a mutation take place wouldn't look like anything. Not to mention, in an E. coli bacterium, DNA polymerase synthesizes new strands at the rate of 1000 base pairs per second. [1] By the time anyone realized what was going on, the relevant event would be over. In any cause, the term "observation" here is meant in the scientific sense, and need not mean only viewing with one's eyes. As I am sure Zets is aware, the scientific method consists in developing hypotheses and testing them by means of controlling for all variables except the one of interest. That is what took place in the study in question. The variables were controlled such that no other (non-miraculous) explanation is possible for the observered result- a colony of bacteria displaying a heretofore unobserved ability. Zets himself has suggested no competing explanation for how this could have come about. Thats because there is no coherent explanation, except that the genetic makeup of the organism in question changed over the course of many generations. "Many of these cases are, wellï¿½€ï¿½ useless, they prove polypoidy exists and can be found in both domestic and wild species of plants, seeds and fruits. That is there main conclusion, see all the abstracts and conclusion sections to the links for evidence." First off, recall in the last round Zets claimed that polAgain, Zets claims that because we are not in the position to physically watch these cells as they divide, it is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that such mutations occurred spontaneously. However, that is a violation of common sense and of sound reasoning. Occam's razor holds that the simplest explanation that adequately explains all the data is the most likely correct one. Not only is spontaneous genetic change (ie evolution) the simplest, and thus most likely possible explanation, it is also the only one on offer. Zets has not attempted to provide a differing or better explanation for these events of spontaneous change either, most likely because there are no better explanations. Also note that his refutations consist in the main of statements to the effect that "this is irrelevant" with little or no further explanation given. "Natural selection isn't a cause for evolution, mutation is. Mutation is the only cause for evolution. Natural selection is the means in which the mutated (evolved) species became a majority, the allele frequency increases, but even in this case, they must have been a ï¿½€˜prime evolver' some time or another." Mutations are base on which natural selection acts in order to produce the variety of life found on earth. While its true that without mutations, there would be no genetic differences for natural selection to act on, it is nonetheless the case that natural selection is the THEORY meant to explain why and how evolution takes place. "According to Wikipedia antiviral drugs are a form antibiotics since they kill microorganisms" Indeed. However, my round made no reference to viruses at all, but rather to "superbugs" such as MRSA, found to haunt hospitals. These superbugs are almost invariably bacteria. "I didn't know if I was supposed to reply for this, it's true but ring species are no different to any other evolved species. What led you to stating this?" As I stated in R1, ring species demonstrate gradual genetic changes spread over a geographical area, where 2 groups close to one another can interbreed, but the further apart they become, the more like 2 separate species they become. They provide a sort of time-lapse image of the evolutionary process spread over a geographical area. By observing the patterns in such species, we thus observe the process of genetic change over time. I think everyone would agree that "observe" means more than to simply view with one's eyes. The study I cited clearly and carefully eliminated all possible competing explanations for the genetic change that took place. The supplementary evidence I offered further supported the conclusions reached by the study, namely that genetic change takes place and can lead to new traits. while Zets has attempted to call these results into question by being skeptical of conclusions drawn without physicaly viewing the events in question, this defence is inadequate. To take what one sees as a given while what one infers from what one sees as intrinsically suspect is inconsistent at best, and obfuscatory at worst. As he has shown no error in reasoning, nor even suggested one, between what was observed and what was concluded, one can only assume that he means to declare all inductions as suspect. If thats the case, he cannot rely on the sense of "seeing" that he does in reference to observation that he does without contradicting himself. For it is clearly an induction from past interactions that what we see represents something solid and real in the external world. Forgive me if it appears I am introducing new arguments in the last round; however it is only in this final round that Zets declared the "observation" of scientific induction to be invalid in relation to the resolution. Due to his contradictory stance, I consider his arguments on that point moot. 1. http://cdn.idtdna.com...