Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

I apologize as I was in a rush that I did not address everything to the extent that I wanted to. I did my best to address as much as I can. Introduction of new genetic information: As with MDR germs, my opponent seems to accept that they are not solid evidence for microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. Rather it seems at best as another example in an extremely long list of examples of natural selection. I’m not sure if I said something in my previous argument that needs clarifying, but I have never said that beneficial mutations can happen. The premise of my argument is that all mutations, beneficial or not, at best adds no new genetic information. However, mutations aren’t capable of creating new genetic information (ex. New functional genes), therefore microbes-to-microbiologists which require the introduction of new genetic information, can’t happen. Returning to Lenski’s experiment, first off, the reason why citrate isn’t transported under aerobic conditions is because during aerobic respiration, oxygen oxidizes glucose for energy. However, lack of oxygen would mean that glucose can’t be processed. Therefore the bacteria look to citrate for energy, which isn’t as good as a source because it yields less ATP (energy) and leaves some toxic leftovers when processed. In order to transport citrate, a certain protein is needed. Therefore, the gene responsible for that protein is activated, producing the protein. To have that protein produced under aerobic conditions, the gene producing the protein could have simple mutated in a way that the regulation of the production of the protein has been messed up. However, as I continue to write this, it has occurred to me that our arguments on whether this proves that genetic information can arise through mutation is based on pure speculation on what could have happened in Lenski’s experiment. For all we know, Lenski’s explanation for what could have happened may be completely false. Until more research is conducted on what exactly happened during Lenski’s experiment, I hope that my opponent can agree that this experiment is inconclusive. The Youtube video seems irrelevant to me as the parts, or pieces of the clock are already present. Say that simple clock represents a simple bacterium. And the clock below which can also keep track of days, weeks, and months, even adjusting itself for leap years represents a human. It is rather clear that in order for a simple clock to evolve to the clock above, it is clear that many functional pieces must be introduced, let alone put together properly. Living Fossils: Let’s take a look at a few mass extinctions. The most well-known one that killed the dinosaurs was a giant meteor that smashed the Earth, spilling large amounts of dust that blocks the sun sending the Earth into a deep-freeze. Living fossils that lived during that time, such as crocodiles and the Cycad plants would have had to evolve drastically to survive or face extinction. Then evolve again when the dust settled and the green house gases trapped heat, skyrocketing temperatures even past what was normal during the time of the dinosaurs. In addition, oceanic ecosystems can be heavily affected by mass extinctions. For example, the Cambrian–Ordovician extinction events consisted of a rapid depletion in oxygen in the ocean. Or even look at today where human pollution of the oceans has resulted in many species going extinct, enough to technically count as a mass extinctions. How would the coral reef dwelling Nautilus mollusk survive without evolving? Dinosaurs: I’m going to have to take back my archeological arguments. I know very little about archeology and I probably should have done more research in this field before making such arguments. However, with the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones, you seem to appeal to the fact that nature has somehow preserved the tissue despite the overwhelming evidence that it can’t. We know currently that such proteins and soft tissue degrade rather quickly from experimental evidence. From what we know about how these biological materials degrade, it can be deduced that it can’t last for 65 million years. To insist that it survived for that long where the evidence contradicts that notion is in a way parallel to the god of the gaps fallacy. The fact that dinosaur bones return a carbon date at all is evidence against millions of years. There is a reason why things supposedly older than 50,000 years old aren’t carbon dated. As seen in the diagram, after 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 content would be basically zero, therefore undetectable. I don’t agree with the date per se. I won’t go into detail why I do not accept radiometric dating as I don’t want this debate turn into one about the validity of this dating method. Radiometric dating relies on unverifiable assumptions. They have to make an assumption on what was present at the beginning, parent/daughter isotope amounts haven’t been altered during the course of its existence, the half-life is constant. Creationists do have explanations for the general order of the fossil record, however, with such explanations, I don’t have the knowledge to comprehend nor defend. Therefore I won’t use such arguments. Transitional Forms: Tiktaalik – tetrapod footprints have been found that are older than the supposed age of tiktaalik. It can’t be a transitional form if its descendants are older than the transitional form itself Microraptor – One can be skeptical on whether this fossil is genuine or not. This fossil came from China where previously the Archaeoraptor, a “feathered” dinosaur was proven a hoax. And according to the leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of dino-to-bird evolution, Dr Alan Feduccia, there are many fake fossils circulating around China. In addition, fossils found in China stay in China and are not authenticated by paleontologists. “Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found. Journals like Nature don't require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.” Sources: http://therumpus.net... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://io9.com... http://www.pbs.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://discovermagazine.com... http://www.livescience.com... https://commons.wikimedia.org...