Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

Thank you for responding so promptly, Con. I invite you to take time to consider your points more carefully in the future, because you’ve taken on some tremendous burdens for your position by making many unsubstantiated claims. Con claims that he is not equivocating the layman meaning of “theory” in place of the scientific meaning of “theory”. However, if that is the case, then he is essentially conceding the resolution, because in order to even be a scientific theory – especially one that has stood up against 150 years of heavy opposition and scrutiny – there must be supporting evidence, and thus my position in the resolution is affirmed true. Con states last round that a mindless cause has been disproven. He is sloppily making that claim without providing anything at all to back it up. The law of parsimony, or Occam’s Razor, doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” anything – it is simply a philosophical principle which guides us to assume that the simplest explanation is the most reasonable likelihood until more information is available. It is a sound tool, but my opponent is misusing it, and undermining his argument by relying on it to do more heavy lifting than it actually can. Worse, even as he wields it, he is the one who bleeds, because Occam’s Razor presently cuts against my opponent’s position, not mine. There is evidence for evolution, as I have outlined in the previous round, thus meeting my BoP. How compelling one finds that evidence may be impacted by their religious views. The Bible tells us in Genesis 2:7 that YHWH formed Adam out of dust and breathed life into his nostrils, and my opponent (at least from what I can tell) is taking the position that this is true in an absolute and non-figurative sense. In order to believe that, we then have to believe that God planted evidence (6 of the 8 types, one couldn’t hold him responsible for the computer simulations or for human animal husbandry, of course) to make it look like evolution and common ancestry must be true, but in fact he was starting from scratch (dust) each time that a new species appeared. Think about that for a moment. How does this in any way seem parsimonious to you? I’ve supplied evidence to support evolution; does my opponent have any evidence to support the Bible’s claim if it is taken literally? If not, he may want to join the ranks of Christians who accept evolution as being a process used by God. They see no conflict with their faith because they see this creation story as being figurative. For a similar example, they might argue, referring to the “four corners of the Earth” (mentioned in Isaiah 11:12, Acts 10:11, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 and 20:8) does not mean that God or the Bible authors actually thought the world was flat or cube shaped, they may have simply been using this phrase figuratively. At any rate, my opponent seems to think that something is true only if it can be observed, which is bizzare because as many have noted before me, no one has ever actually seen YHWH. In fact, we are told we cannot see him and live (Exodus 33:20). Con responds to my skepticism for the scant evidence for YHWH by stating: “it's not evidence but observable facts such as Substance Dualism/Quantum Physics, DNA, First Uncaused Cause, Shroud of Turin, Objective Morality and Witness of YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit).” Now, in order for him to successfully use this to counter my position, he would have to show i) the truth of each of these things, as well as ii) that they somehow invalidate the evidence for evolution that I’ve provided. As I said, he’s created a pretty difficult burden for himself by taking his argument this direction. The Evidence I shall close this round by defending the lines of evidence which he attacked last round. #1) Already discussed above (ADA) #2) If the legs of a whale (which they still have the structure for) was used by its ancestors to walk on land, perhaps as an amphibian, would such an ancestor still correctly be called a whale? No. We are talking about one species eventually transitioning into a distinctly different species. #3) ADA #4) For an analogy, imagine that we are trying to figure out how the Grand Canyon got there. It seems ridiculous that a little river could have eroded such a majestic formation. It would take much longer than any human lives to be able to see a noticeable difference in the rock, but the evidence suggests that the Colorado River is responsible, over the course of many millions of years (around 20 mil), for eroding the canyon that we see today. [6] Similarly, the fact that we don’t live long enough to directly observe these phenomena does not mean that we cannot use evidence to figure out what happened with reasonable confidence. #5) Similar to my defense of 4, but let’s frame this as a math concept. Suppose that every second, 1 is being added to a number, and let’s say that number is low, maybe 10. It becomes 11. 12. 13. I tell you that the number achieved will eventually reach astronomical values, like 700 trillion if you give it enough time. We may not still be alive to see it, but we could reasonably expect it to get there. Would you be inclined to disagree, and say “no, no, the number might be able to get to the 100’s or 1000’s place, or other numbers that I can more easily imagine, but the number will never get to be 700 trillion?” #6) ADA, but I will elaborate. According to the biological species concept, a species is defined as a group of organisms that are able to breed with one another to produce viable offspring that, in turn, can also produce viable offspring by interbreeding [7]. That means that when beetles, mice, or anything else is able to branch off, perhaps because of a geographical divide, if the populations evolve to be different enough to no longer be able to produce viable offspring when they are reintroduced to one another, then those populations are now two separate species which share a common ancestor. This brings me to a common misconception. Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, chimps, etc… but rather that all modern primates share a common ancestor that we have each branched off from. #7) The oldest dog breeds are only about 500 years old, and most have been bred only within the last 150 years [8]. The fact is not even in question, but if you want to keep debating this line, be my guest. #8) I find evidence from 8 to be useful only in that it corroborates the other results. If the projections were made independent from any grounding in reality, I would agree with my opponent that they are useless. However, that is not the case. References 6) http://www.bobspixels.com... 7) https://www.boundless.com... 8) http://archaeology.about.com...