Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

Evolution Can’t Happen Con’s position is that evolution can happen and given enough beneficial mutations, a single cell could turn into a whale, pterodactyl, or potato.I have argued that there is no such thing as a truly beneficial mutation, and that all mutations are random, chaotic typos in the genetic code. In Round 2, I said “Saying that mutations could cause beneficial evolutionary change is like saying throwing a rock into the complex, interlocked gears of a machine would improve the machine.” Con has attacked this idea, saying “Find me a steel building or a copper-gear watch that can be injured, healed, replicated, and can adapt like an organism and then we can talk.” He has completely missed the point of the analogy. The idea being conveyed was that genes and traits are delicately interweaved, that is, one gene could code for many traits, and one trait could be coded for by many genes. They all work together in the same way gears of a watch would, in a way such that changing a single detail in one component would affect many other parts. Now insert an aimless error into this careful coordination of genetic information, and what will you get? Will you improve anything? No, and that is why we’ve never observed a beneficial mutation. (http://www.icr.org......)“We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1958). Con also mentions the idea of skin colors arising due to mutation that were passed down through generations. This is completely false, as somatic mutations aren’t transferred to offspring. Con believes in what is called Lamarckism, which was proven wrong. The different skin colors were probably already in the gene pools of humans when they were first created. (http://necsi.edu...) In Round 2, I discussed the fruit fly experiments done in hopes of proving that evolution can happen. During the experiments, fruit flies were exposed to x-rays which caused translocations, deletions, inversions, and more (what would normally be seen from regular, naturally occurring mutations) in the DNA code. Due to the short life spans of the flies and x-rays expediting mutation rates, mutations that would only be seen in millions of years of larger animals reproducing could be studied. No beneficial mutations were observed.Con has denied that the results of these experiments prove anything, saying “All irradiation does is fill up our junk DNA structures with junk info and waste material and that eats it away fast, causing more possible chances of harmful mutations to occur within the readable DNA structures.” Con argues that mutations produced by radiation are much more likely to be harmful than naturally arising mutations. This is simply not true. All mutations, no matter how they are induced are harmful. And even if the results of these experiments were invalid, that still wouldn’t help Con, whom the burden of proof is on, show that beneficial mutations exist. Evolution Hasn’t Happened In Round 2, I rebutted the human-pig and human-ape similarity arguments by explaining that similarities could indicate a common creator. Con, however has refused to accept this and believes that two animals having genetic similarities undeniably proves that they both “evolved” from a common ancestor. He has not explained why the fact that there are similarities could not possibly be interpreted in other non-evolutionistic ways. Again, my analogies are misunderstood by Con, as the purpose of my comparisons are to show that similarities might be the results of a common designer. If a common designer made two different computer programs, they would be expected to have similarities in their code. Just as if a common designer created two different animals, they would be expected to have similarities in their genetic code. Is Con suggesting that if Creation were true, humans, pigs, and any other animals would absolutely have to have completely different amino acids (in which case we wouldn’t be able to eat other animals), cells, tissues, organs, fluids, and structures? That would be pointless and wasteful. Similarities would be expected from a common designer. Similarities would also be expected from common ancestry. Thus similarities can’t be proof of either one.“If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.”—Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly (1923). And the reason why humans have a higher percentage of DNA similarity with apes than with other animals is because humans’ bodies are more similar to apes than other animals. It has nothing to do with ancestral relatedness. Con devotes four paragraphs basically saying Creation is religious, the Lochness monster does not exist, the New Testament supposedly has inaccuracies, and evolution isn’t supposed to be a religion. This completely irrelevant to the topic of whether or not evolution is supported with scientific evidence. In Round 2, I explained that Neanderthal Men were probably men living during the Ice Age that had rickets and arthritis. Con, in response to this, has asked “If such a large group of people were so horribly afflicted with rickets and arthritis, then why not everyone?” The reason why some people had Neanderthaloid features was due to their location and lifestyles. Rickets was caused by lack of vitamin D due to dust and ash blocking sunlight (which is what caused the Ice Age from a Creation perspective). So people who were in areas with greater dust pollution and who stayed in caves for most of their lives would be more prone to developing Neanderthal characteristics than others. Additionally, Neanderthal would point to Creation more so than evolution because Creation teaches that earlier humans lived longer, and I have described how this would cause Neanderthaloid features in Round 2. (“Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” in Nature, August 1970.)In Round 2, I suggested that Indonesian Hobbits were most likely microcephalic humans, not a new species. The microcephaly would be due to deficiency in nutrition (which would occur because of where the Hobbits lived). The microcephaly would explain unusually small heads, deformed bone structures in many areas, and a lack of iodine would result in the Hobbits’ dwarfism. Con criticizes my explanation, saying “No bones have ever been found with Homo Floresiensis [the hobbits] to suggest that it was strange to be really short and have a really small head.” This is silly; of course microcephaly was normal amongst those people because it was being passed down through the gene code. If two of the Hobbits reproduced, the offspring would be microcephalic because the two parents, whom the baby’s genetic information came from, were. (https://answersingenesis.org...)Con has mentioned Java Man and Peking Man, so I shall rebut them. Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois is complete imagination. Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. Dubois announced that all these came from the same creature and that he had discovered Java Man! That’s not science. As for Peking Man, all that were found were bashed monkey skulls, teeth, and some tools. It was assumed that the monkeys were learning to use those tools and that they were evolving. In actuality, humans were using the tools on the monkeys to eat their brains. Many natives of Southeast Asia chop off monkey heads and scoop out the brains for dinner, and this is all that Peking Man was. (Hank Hanegraaff, “The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution” (2001).)I have argued in Round 2 that bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not evolution. A mutation would cause one of the bacteria’s crucial proteins to develop improperly. Most bacteria with said mutations would die, I agree. But sometimes, the bacteria would still live, but would struggle to survive and be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the population. However, the antibiotic wouldn’t be able to bind with the bacteria’s deformed protein structure, so the bacteria would live. Con says “If antibiotics were not introduced, then there was no challenge to overcome...” This is false, the bacterium would have challenges to overcome because of its mutilated cell structure. Other parts of the bacteria would have to work harder to keep it alive. Con needs to understand that when antibiotics are present, the bacteria population is in a restricted environment. You can’t say “This mutation is harmful in the bacteria’s normal environment, but if we put the bacteria in a certain condition, the mutation would result in beneficial outcomes, and that’s evolution.” The mutation isn’t truly beneficial. And when the bacteria acquired the mutation for its deformed organ, no new information, which evolution desperately needs, was added.“Credibility”Con still uses the logic: A lot of scientists believe in it, and that proves that it’s true. I will not waste characters explaining why this is illogical, but I want to remind Con that the topic is whether or not evolution is supported with evidence, not whether or not the majority believes it. Sources: Listed throughout argument.