Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

Thanks Pro. I spent the round stating my arguments, not strictly refuting. Pro is trying to bend the argument into a place where he will win. If you want to refute macroevolution, then logic stands: what is there to refute if there are no plausible alternative theories? Trying to disapprove this theory without mentioning where you think we evolved from is problematic in the same way it would be problematic to try and disapprove photosynthesis without talking about the sun. There is enormous evidence for macroevolution, and to depend on the odd hole, like genome theory (which is a relatively new field) to try and disapprove the entirety of macroevolution seems intellectually dishonest. Let’s look at Pro’s definition of “Macroevolution”: “creatures evolved into men through the generations, dinosaurs into birds, and so on. All life on earth has a common ancestor.” If you want to discuss genetics, that’s fine, but all I have to do to prove that I’m right is show that macroevolution as you defined it did happen, and that is no problem at all. First, a question for Pro: If genomes do not evolve on a large scale, then how do you explain the mass variance in genetics between different organisms? For example, some bacteria may only have a gene number of 1000, but in humans that number increases to 30,000-40,000: a more complex genome. We evolved, and our genome did as well. I’m not a biologist and I’m beginning to reach the end of my expertise in this area, but I’ll try to keep explaining this. There is still a misunderstanding here. In microevolution the genome can evolve. Although the immensity of the evolutionary timeframe can make conceptualizing difficult, you must understand: Macro is not a different process. I’ll discuss this in further depth, there are multiple ways this can work: Gene duplication is a commonly observed mechanism. There is no controversy. Medical definition: “Gene duplication A portion of the genetic material is duplicated or replicated resulting in multiple copies of that region. Gene duplication may lead to mutation and certain disorders. For instance, duplications of oncogenes cause many types of cancer, such as in the case of P70-S6 Kinase 1 amplification and breast cancer. Gene duplication is also an important event in terms of evolution. Through duplication, many copies of genes in the genome can be produced. This would allow each gene to evolve independently to possess distinct functions. Such a set of evolutionarily related genes can be referred to as gene family.” (http://www.biology-online.org...) Whole-Genome Duplication is a way to possibly increase gene numbers in big bursts. It’s caused by an error during meiosis: two gametes fuse, the result is a type of autopolyploid, specifically a tetraploid cell with a nucleus that contains four copies of each chromosome. This process has been observed in plants, (see: Hugo de Vries) and can result in successful autopolyploidy, producing speciation, as the surviving plant cannot reproduce with the older species. This is one plausible way gene expansion could have been created, as the extra gene can be used for evolution without harming the integrity of the organism. In this way, new genes are evolved. Pro is right in saying that proof is limited for this concept, as one would anticipate it would be, by nature. How one could distinguish genes that evolved in this manner from the previously established genes would be almost impossible. Individual/Group Gene Duplication: the “other” ways to explain gene number increases: Unequal crossing-over is a recombination event initiated by similar nucleotide sequences that are not at identical places in a pair of homologous chromosomes. As shown in Figure 15.10A, the result of unequal crossing-over can be duplication of a segment of DNA in one of the recombination products. Unequal sister chromatid exchange occurs by the same mechanism as unequal crossing-over, but involves a pair of chromatids from a single chromosome. DNA amplification is sometimes used in this context to describe gene duplication in bacteria and other haploid organisms, in which duplications can arise by unequal recombination between the two daughter DNA molecules in a replication bubble. Replication slippage could result in gene duplication if the genes are relatively short, although this process is more commonly associated with the duplication of very short sequences such as the repeat units in microsatellites. Fossil Record The fossil record contains a slow, carefully dated record of evolution over vast periods of time. Small, bit by bit evolution – micro, you might say, that when taken as a big picture is macro. Pro continues to chase the concept he wishes to see from overwhelming evidence, not taking the evidence and forming a concept. The Cambrian Explosion did produce a great deal in a span of about 20-25 Million years, followed by another diversification period of some 70 Million years. This is where whole genome duplication could have come in. Macroevolution does not imply a perfect, gradual climb. That would be disregarding the way nature works. An exponential oxygen increase, formation of the Ozone, evolution of eyes, size, predation development – all having their respective effects. Keep in mind evolution is hardly all done in a quick Cambrian burst. It takes far longer to get even to mammals. Leftovers To say we don’t see any vestigial parts is just outrageous. You have an appendix that does nothing, you have wisdom teeth that routinely grow crooked and must be removed, you have male nipples, you have the plica semilunaris – which does not aid in creating mucus for the eye - that is just a fallacy, the Meibomian gland and the Conjunctiva creates the mucus. Flightless birds? From Millodot: Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science, 7th edition: “plica semilunaris A crescent-shaped fold of conjunctiva located at the inner canthus lateral to the caruncle. It is a vestigial structure that represents the third eyelid or nictitating membrane of lower vertebrates.” (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) Common Ancestry Pro spends a great deal of time playing with semi-semantical arguments that don’t present much honest proof. Of course I imply Macroevolution. That is my side. It’s your problem to pick apart why the theory doesn’t work and imply why this strange version of ‘microevolution’ is the answer. After all, they are essentially the very same process. I fail to see how similarities in the genome imply different ancestors; no matter what method you want to say caused the evolution, similarities are similarities, are they not? My theory fits rather neatly with the evidence, and you make no effort in this response to fit a better theory to the facts, and so my theory, as I see it, stands. Behe At this point I have ten minutes left, so I will mount a better response next round to Pro’s proof with Behe, a scientist who I don’t usually take seriously. For now I will refer you to this: http://scienceblogs.com... Sources http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.psrast.org...