The "deteriorating process" can explain all inferred instances of the "compounding process."

I truly appreciate the time and effort my opponent has put into this debate. I also appreciate that the burden of proof is now equally shared; better late than never. Now, Pro too will have to show that the evidence supporting his position is observed, which thus far hasn't been the case. Pro's jingwei gene assumption is baseless Pro is assuming that the jingwei gene is not observable and thus false evidence. Pro seems to be denying the methodology that enabled researchers to analyze the jinqwei nucleotide sequences and the experimental evidence that established phylogenetic comparisons, which were adequately discussed in the referenced paper (1). Further, the jingwei gene is also not only observable--it has been isolated and characterized (1), but also has an observable novel function (2). Moreover, the authors of the aforementioned referenced paper examined nucleotide sequences between different coding regions of homologous genes in related species and showed that the genetic changes have been subject to positive selection. My opponent is also starting to back-pedal on an accepted agreement that unique species-specific traits exist by suggesting that jingwei gene could have been carried down from the original ancestor. Even with this breach of contract, this suggestion is highly unlikely and goes against the principle of Occam's razor. As mentioned in round 2, the jingwei gene has sequence homology with the alcohol dehydrogenase gene, which is a highly conserved gene seen in many different organisms (3) and the yellow emperor gene, which is expressed in the testis (2). So, the fact that the jingwei gene is expressed in the testis and can function as a alcohol dehydrogenase in addition to its newly evolved function (3) strongly suggest that the jingwei gene is derived from these two genes. Moreover, this is the simplest explanation for how this new genetic information can arise from a common gene and a tissue specific gene within particular taxa. In round 2, I showed how the new genetic information generated in the jingwei gene arose from gene duplication, which is the opposite of a deletion or loss of genetic information (4). I also demonstrated that its chimeric nature provides a foundation for the evolution of genetic novelty (i.e., a species specific trait). Furthermore, Pro failed to provide any evidence for how this instance of a ‘compounding process' can be explained by the ‘deteriorating process'. Thus, the jingwei gene still stands as proof for validating my thesis. Reaffirming that the RNASE 1B gene supports my thesis Like the jingwei gene, the RNASE 1B gene has observable genetic information and has a novel observable function that has undergone intense scientific examination, which was generated by gene duplication (5). The authors of this study established that seven of the nine amino acid substitutions of the duplicate RNASE 1 gene led to increased negative charge of the protein, which predicts that there is an altered pH for RNASE 1B. To test this, the authors conducted over-expression experiments and biological chemical analysis. The data confirmed that RNASE 1B does in fact have a lowered optimal pH value, which correlates with a leaf-eating digestive system of the colobine monkey. This clearly establishes that the RNASE 1B gene and its gene product are observable and have an adaptive biological function that has been generated by a gain--not a loss--of genetic information. The RNASE 1B example still stands as evidence for validating my thesis Pro's proof 1 does not support his position My opponent proffered the first proof to establish that a lack of biological information is equivalent to a loss of genetic information. This is categorically false. The decrease in enzymatic function of lactose in human adults with lactose intolerance is not due to a loss of genetic information, no matter how much my opponent wants this to be true. The lactose gene is still present in lactose intolerance. Further, there are degrees of lactose intolerance suggesting that the biological function of the lactose enzyme is not fully inactivated in all people with this condition (6). But more to the point: Pro has yet to empirically demonstrate the observable, specific nucleotides that are lost in lactose intolerance, and I don't have to show that lactose intolerance is generated by a gain of genetic information; it is not my evidence. Thus, Pro's proof 1 is still refuted. Pro's proof 2 is still refuted Pro suggests I conceded that his second proof is evidence for his postulate. My opponent is either being intellectually dishonest or just completely disregarding what I actually wrote. The point I made was that I agree that the isolation of populations can lead to speciation through random (i.e., genetic drift) and non-random (i.e., naturally selection) events. I did not explicitly state nor suggest that any new biological function has to come about through deterioration of the genetic information. Moreover, my opponent has not provided a scintilla of scientific evidence that allopatric speciation strictly stems from loss of genetic information. Thus, Pro' proof 2 is still refuted. Pro's proof 3,4,5 and 6 fail to meet the burden of proof First of all, Pro's proof 3 is redundant because it is just describing his proof 2, which is a hypothetical thought experiment that doesn't involve actual traits or genetic information; and that alone invalidates it as proof for his postulate. Moreover, while my opponent states he "could list numerous examples of allopatric speciation" that support his position, he conveniently doesn't. Pro wants me to pick one so he can refute it, but my role isn't to prove his postulate. My role is only to rebut his presented evidence, which I am successfully doing. And Pro's proof 4, 5, and 6 just describe different modes for how speciation can occur. These proofs fail to provide any observable material evidence that new biological information arose from the ‘deteriorating process'. Thus, all of these proofs fail to meet the condition that Pro established for the burden of proof, and as such does not provide support for his postulate. Pro's proof 7 is just an unfounded opinion Pro feels there is no need to explain how this opinion on the "fundamental unity of life even applies to his postulate. From my perspective, this demonstrates that Pro's position stems from a belief that his postulate is inherently true, rather than a logically derived conclusion from validate premises. Closing comments My opponent has provided numerous proofs, which he believes is evidence that speciation occurs through the loss of genetic information. But none of these proofs give any clues as to what genetic information is being lost or how lost genetic information can give rise to new biologic functions without having any newly gained genetic information; nor are any of my opponents proofs observable evidence that can be linked or correlated to a new species-specific trait. I am looking forward to Pro's closing argument. Reference 1.http://www.dpgp.org... 2.http://www.pnas.org... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.http://www.biology.uiowa.edu... 6.http://en.wikipedia.org...