Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

In regards to the contradictory statements. My apologies. The copy pasting was not working. I will do so again. “. .. No matter how "fit" an animal is, if it's randomly struck by lightning or crushed by a rampaging elephant, the genes will not pass to the next generation. .. ”“. .. However, if an increase in complexity also leads some benefit in fitness, then stochastic evolutionary processes will lead to fixation of increased complexity through differential reproduction. .. ”Notice that my opponent has contradicted himself. In one sentence, he states that fitness is not the issue, but in the very next, he says that greater fitness will lead to greater survival. Don’t you see the absurdity? Observant readers will be aware that contrary to my opponent’s assertive opinion that I have displayed a lack of understanding of the scientific method, I have actually provided a condensed version of it! How my opponent can ignore that fact while asserting this dubious opinion I know not. In regards to his defence of his statistics, notice that my opponent has not at all responded to my arguments regarding the null hypothesis. My opponent blusters his way through “answering” my arguments, but as shown earlier, his arguments contradict themselves at least twice without him at all remedying anything. My opponent’s challenge for me to “falsify” nested hierarchy has already been achieved. Critical readers will be aware that my example of the cars has absolutely falsified nested hierarchy. My opponent has baselessly thrown words such as “nonsensical,” “utter ridiculousness. ” Notice that unlike me, my opponent is unable to substantiate his claims more than just through assertive opinion. My opponent is absolutely unable to falsify the example of cars. He is unable to show in the least bit how the car hierarchy is not “objective. ” Instead, he has begun to throw weightless accusations. He keeps asserting that my example of cars is not objective. What does this tell us? Well, it is simple confirmation of the bluster from my opponent. Once again, my opponent has not shown how cars are not indeed capable of fitting into a twin nested hierarchy. What is utterly ridiculous about my opponent’s assertion that my argument is utterly ridiculous is that he presents no argument whereby the cars analogy is falsified. My opponent, in my request for one detailed example, gave six sparse example and asked me to read up on it. Even if I did not know about those examples, which I did, I would not present a rebuttal to something not present. My opponent has admitted, implicitly, that he has argued with sources! “. .. I provided six examples as well as their citations. Each citation refers to an empirical experiment which confirmed the twin nested hierarchy in some way. .. ”Notice that he has failed to argue intelligently in this debate by using sources and facetiously asking me to read them up! My opponent deems me indignant in that I have refuted his points and have conclusively shown that he quote-mined. The observant reader will notice that he does not defend himself on this point. Furthermore, my opponent has made a straw man of my arguments. The second time in this debate. In no way was I indignant at anyone’s failure to provide criteria for complexity. I have challenged him to provide a criteria by which complexity can be selected for, not for how to determine complexity. Notice the subtle way in which my opponent has made this straw man. My opponent, fascinatingly, has given an example of an animal which can “survive sub-arctic” temperature. Notice that surviving in sub-arctic temperature need not be complex. My opponent has shown a gross lack of knowledge of simple biology on this point. Surviving sub-arctic temperatures need not require greater complexity. In fact, greater complexity can lead to “unfitness,” as the article cited has shown clearly. By the way, if the reader cared to download the article, they will find no bearing of the article (Con’s 1) on the debate. Proteins =/= living. My opponent, possibly in desperation, has not provided a link to a study about an organism that gets more complex to survive! My opponent has claimed that he has provided six falsifiable examples of nested hierarchies. Notice that he does not at all address my objection to his null hypothesis, he also has been arguing with sources, as I pointed out. Readers should be aware of the fact that my opponent has not provided any falsification against the common designer argument or the car analogy. In both of his “refutations,” my opponent has used big numbers and technical words to try to trip me up. I have shown myself capable of replying. What is most appalling in my opponent’s case is that he gives no evidence, nor does he link his arguments to, evidence for changes in living organisms that will change bacterium to homo sapiens. As my opponent has presented little to none of his own arguments, I will allow him to “refute” in the next round. The next round was originally for him to solidify his own arguments. Conclusion:As such, the resolution is strongly negated. In bullet points, here are the problems within my opponents arguments. My opponent has contradicted himself on at least two occasions. My opponent has, at least six times, used the fallacy of arguing with a source, even going as far as to ask me to look it up. My opponent, rather tediously, has not provided any coherent refutation of my cars analogy, my fossil argument, or my argument regarding the unfalsifiability of nested hierarchies. At most, he has ridiculed without falsifying the former, ignored the middle, and superficially answered the latter by means of saying that it is “irrelevant. ” My opponent has quote-mined my sources, destroying his credibility. On at least two occasions, my opponent has responded to caricatures of my arguments. This is called “Straw Man. ” I thought my opponent was aware of that, but it appears that he is not. My opponent has, multiple times throughout the debate, asserted his opinion that I am scientifically illiterate. This is blatantly false, as I showed. With that, I leave it to him to finish the debate and then to the voters.