Evolution: The ramfications of multiple mutations And the necessity for Informatio.

My opponent claims that the quotes he included were only to support his arguments, however, this hardly seems to be the case; he lifted four entire paragraphs! However, he still did not include the entire article that he "quoted" and therefore cannot legitimately claim to have used all of its sources. CON apparently has no grasp of the meaning of the word "species," which I will define later in C2 of my affirmative case. He has done little to answer my argument against his probability claim other than to repeat his prior statements. Indeed, he has brought up very little of substance, therefore I intend to keep this round very brief. ========= REBUTTALS ========= ---> "70% of all mutations have a DIRECT negative effect on the individual." Yes, and bad mutations much less likely to be passed on. l fail to see how this is at all relevant. ---> "In many cases the structure is of no direct harm, yet all structures DO require extra energy..." This is a contradiction in terms; if a mutation causes harm, direct or indirect, then it isn't neutral. ---> "An organism as simple as a single bacteria needs...31,500 thousand generations to evolve [a] useful trait." It took 20 years to develop the ability to metabolize citrate. Given that the earth is 4.54 billion years old,[1] and life has existed for at least 3.5 billion years,[2] does evolution really seem so improbable? Moreover, there is no reason to arbitrarily distinguish between the 12 populations. Suppose Lenski had simply combined them into one large population? Remember that we are only dealing with a small lab population; bacterial colonies are large and abundant in nature. ---> "The odds to have beneficial mutations, followed by multiple evolutionary mutations, especially with organism that are incredibly more complex than a bacteria, such as a mammalian, which requires a considerable amount of time with a lot more generations due to their said complexity, are then lowered to an impossibility point." Here my opponent raises an important point. Ever since the development of sexual reproduction, evolution has progressed much more quickly.[3] This is because many favorable genetic combinations can be rapidly assimilated into one phenotype. Say animal A has a trait that allows it to run faster, while animal B has a trait that causes it to digest food more efficiently. Animal C has a mutation that strengthens its immune system, and animal D evolves better eyesight. All four traits are likely to be passed on because of the survival advantages they confer. As each favorable trait becomes more prevalent throughout a population, there's a good chance that some animal will come to possess all four of them, thanks to sexual reproduction. ---> Probability of multiple beneficial mutations My opponent has not listed three independent sources verfying his claim, but three different articles citing the same original source. CON is merely repeating himself -- I have already fully refuted his probability claims and feel no need to do so a second time. In addition to all of my earlier objections, I also pointed out in this round that sexual reproduction greatly increases the rate at which evolution takes place. My opponent's argument truly holds no water. ========= CASE PRO ========= C1 - Vestigial Structures The human appendix still retains some use, therefore it is not truly a vestigial structure. I pointed out that whale femurs can actually hinder the animal, and CON has made no attempt to refute this. Moreover, we have fossil evidence PROVING that the femur is an evolutionary remnant. Early whales had small feet and flippers that could also be used as forelimbs.[4] These animals were very similar to modern seals or walruses. CON has also ignored the other examples I have given, such as the pelvises found in snakes, useless wings sealed beneath fused wing covers in certain beetles, and the flowers and pollen of the dandelion. There are literally thousands more similar examples, but it is useless to belabor the point. C2 - Observed instances of speciation Species: Taxonomic groups, usually defined by inability to interbreed and produce viable offspring. Species are reproductively isolated from each other. Genes in one species cannot combine with genes from another species and produce a successfully reproducing vehicle.[5] The copper resistant monkey flowers were indeed a new species. Not only did they have a new, favorable trait, but they were reprodutively isolated from the non-resistant plants, as I stated quite clearly in my opening round. == CONCLUSION == My core contentions remain unrefuted. Unless CON can pull together some powerful evidence in his last round, I strongly urge you to vote PRO. The resolution is AFFIRMED. -- References -- 1. http://pubs.usgs.gov... 2. Schopf, J.W., Kudryavtsev, A.B., Agresti, D.G., Wdowiak, T.J., Czaja, A.D. "Laser--Raman imagery of Earth's earliest fossils." Nature 416: 73–6 . 2002 3. Colegrave, N. . "Sex releases the speed limit on evolution." Nature 420: 664-666. 2002 4. http://www.nytimes.com... 5. http://web.missouri.edu...