Natural Selection's Limitations

Your first claim in round 1 is a bit confusing. You said, "The notion that 'traits' are selected is a misunderstanding of the nature of evolution." Is not natural selection a primary mechanism for evolutionary change? And does not natural selection "select" traits based on their survival benefit? To deny this is to deny what every biology textbook teaches concerning natural selection. Your first perplexing assertion aside, below I shall be addressing your claims as space and time permit. . Rebuttal and Addressal of Con's Opening Arguments . You begin by stating that I provided an example which "demonstrates changes in traits." No, what I did what provide an example of natural selection, showing that it merely works to select from what is already available in the gene pool of a population. . You go on to say, "My assumption is that he's going to argue on the basis of what's considered an 'additional' trait and an implied lack of observation of gain-of-function mutations." Your assumptions would be wrong then. I have already made my case demonstrating that natural selection only works to select from pre-existing traits. Why would I need to semantically argue about the term "additional?" It seems quite unnecessary to define this simple word. The creation of a trait that was not previously made available from an organism's genome would be the minimum requirement necessary to satisfy the resolution. Also, why would I argue about the functionality of mutations? I do not see how this plays any role in this debate. A gained function is not necessarily the same thing as a gain of a novel structure or trait. Yes, mutations through duplication, recombination, etc. can provide variety within a species, but this variety is limited to the informational content of the species gene pool. From that egregious statement you seem to go off on a tangent and propose your main addressal shall be toward what you deem as a :"common objection some have." Why would you argue against an objection I have not made? Seems rather pointless, but I digress. I agree with most of your next paragraph concerning the mouse example, with one important exception. You seem to equate preexisting traits with mutations, or you at least seem to be implying that these traits have been created via mutation. Now are you arguing that mutations alone produce novel traits and not natural selection? Your following paragraph concerning mutations seems negligible to me, so for sake of time I shall skip over it. You begin this part of your argument, under the heading "Traits," by making a statement concerning the trivialness in the difference between "large" and "small." While I think I somewhat agree with what I believe you are saying, describing traits in terms of quantity or quality really does not help either of our cases. The issue is really quite simple: can the mechanism of natural selection, either alone or in conjunction with some other mechanism, produce novel structures or not? What I found most disconcerting was the fact that your entire argument here seemed to rest solely on the power of genetic mutations and not natural selection. While I disagree with most of what you claimed concerning the potential for mutations to produce novel structures through duplication and recombination, it should be seriously noted that this debate is concerning the power of natural selection, not mutation alone. If you wish to incorporate the mechanism of genetic mutation into your argument, you must do so in a way which involves natural selection as a co-contributor to the production of novel structures. I will address the issue of gain-of-information mutations at the end of this round below. There is really not much to say in response to your last few paragraphs concerning Polyworld and natural selection. I assumed it was understood that this debate was concerning biological organisms not computer simulations. I see no merit in such endeavors, and even given the veracity of your claims concerning Polyworld, which is in serious question, it remains unuseful in this debate; you have yet to address the resolution. Your last claim is telling to say the least. You say, "Natural selection is merely a theory of logic based on how life works." So you have effectively moved the debate, arbitrarily I might add, from the realm of natural processes to the realm of philosophy. Oh boy. . . The Issue of Gain-of-Information Mutations I should begin by pointing out that even if mutations were able aid in the formation of novel structures, it would still not help Con's case unless he were able to demonstrate the vital role of natural selection in relation to the production of previously non-existent traits. With that said, allow me to demonstrate why even if the resolution dealt strictly with mutations and not natural selection, my opponent would still be in error. I should make it clear that I do believe mutations can create new traits within a species, but in none of these observed instances is the theory of evolution helped. Consider the example you gave of E. coli digesting citrate. The the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, since the Krebs cycle generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Gain-of -information mutations can be a tricky subject as one must determine what merits the title "new information." When considering this issue, we must keep in mind that mutations are entirely random (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...). The few examples given by evolutionists as supposed examples of novel structures being formed through mutation fall short of their claims as we clearly only ever see a degradation of original informational content, not the addition of new, viable code. It is very illogical to even imagine such a random and thoughtless process as genetic mutations producing every complex structure exhibited in biology. If we look beyond the term "information" and recognize the true issue at hand, we can readily see that evolution's required mechanism for producing every structure in biology is not to be found in genetic mutation. The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organisms had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps; and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires. . In conclusion, I must say that Con has yet to address the resolution of this debate. On to you Con. . .