Theory of evolution

My opponent drops my arguments from last round… ==Rebuttals== a) Chimpanzee and human relationship My opponent cites John Cohen, who argues in his Science article that humans are less related to chimpanzees than previously thought (about 5%). Cohen, however, argues that chimpanzees and humans genes differ by “only 1.23%”. The larger number he reports (5-6.5%) are all from the non-coding sections of the genome. Further, Cohen didn’t come up with this number himself, but rather cites research using models. This means that the number he cited is not from ‘hard’ evidence. The 1.23%, Cohen argues, is a hard fact as it is based off of observations of the entire Chimpanzee and Human genome. Cohen argues, therefore, our actual genes (which are the coding) are extremely similar, however it is the noncoding regions which differ. In fact, he argues those who cite his work for intelligent design have “garbled” his data, and the work using his article as an argument against evolution is “sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased” [1]. In fact, if you read the article, Cohen says this. However, I suspect most creationist thinkers are mainly trying to push an agenda. Cohen, directly from his article (I will provide a direct link), notes that many scientists--which believe in evolution--predicted a number higher than 1% may occur due to “profound differences outside genes” [2]. Again, although Cohen thinks the genes are slightly less related than many (1.23% versus under 1%), he finds that most of the differences are due to differences outside the genome! Therefore, creationists should stop citing this study as ‘proof’ that chimpanzees and humans are not closely related. Cohen himself says that creationists are misrepresenting his work! According to the Smithsonian, who gives the low estimates (0.1% difference) to higher estimates (1.2 - 6% difference), and argues both still support evolution. As the Smithsonian notes, “humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate”. In other words, either way, we are our closest relatives are, in fact, chumpanzees. The Smithsonian continues, “[w]e share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us . . . our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence . . . DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.” [3]. The fact is, we are closely related to our primate brethren. We have very very similar DNA to, say, our parents. Siblings, grandparents, and cousins. The fact that we differ about 1-6% is very small, and indicates--no matter which number is accepted--that it is likely we are in the same family. Just like how my mother is in the same family as I am. We are related. Which means that, we had a common ancestor (an ape-like creature)--which supports the theory of evolution. Further, I provided fossil evidence for this, as well, which my opponent seems to have ignored. b) Probability of evolution occurring My opponent does not provide a source (though a while ago he sent me a link with this calculation). However, the creationist math is… well.. It does not take into account the whole picture. There is always a fantastically huge number of ways an animal could evolve, however, the organism obviously will only choose one course. In a creationist calculation, they say evolution didn’t happen, because, well… It took that one course. Which, obviously, is an absurd conclusion. So even if we did observe evolution directly (say, my kids were born a different species), I could say “my kids were never born because the probability of that happening is almost zero”... When it did actually happen. So a creationist probability is based on how many ways things can evolve, and the fact that they choose one out of a million means that evolution is incorrect. However, that is showing that the individual mutation was unlikely, not any type of mutation never happened. In fact, mathematicians have called this creationist argument “pseudoscientific rhetoric”. There was a report published on this very issue. The author makes an interesting analogy to a snowflake. Using creationist logic, it is impossible for a snowflake to form (the probability is actually lower than the number my opponent uses for evolution). So… Snowflakes don't exist! The reason you get a huge number is because creationist equations assume evolution (or, in this case, snowflakes) are formed at random. Evolution is not random. The author says that, at best, creationist equations are “inconclusive” [4]. This means the low probability estimates my opponent cites is because they misunderstand evolution. It is not random, it occurs due to changes from the environment. To put a few basic reasons why this argument does not hold up [5]: “They presume that the biomolecular structure came into existence through a single chance assemblage of atoms (the creationist theory), rather than as the result of an eons-long series of intermediate steps, each useful in a previous biological context (the scientific theory). They ignore numerous well-known physical laws and processes at the atomic level, by which remarkably rich structures can form naturally, not by chance. They apply faulty mathematical reasoning, such as by ignoring the fact that a very wide range of similar molecular structures could perform the specified function. They ignore the fact that biological evolution is not a "random" process -- mutations may be random, but natural selection is far from random. They attempt to invoke advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but derive highly questionable results and misapply these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.” c) Laws of Biology “Life comes from life” is an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution. For all I know, God places a single cell organism and guided its evolution. That is besides the point. The fact is, evolution is real and I have demonstrated that through science. Also, that is not a law of biology at all. In fact, according to Nature, “evolution (or perhaps ecology) are the most likely fields to furnish biological laws” [6]. So, if anything, evolution is a ‘law’ of biology. d) Koran Irrelevant. The Koran is not a scientific source. Due to the fact it pertains to explain the supernatural, it cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, it has no bearing on this debate. However, most muslim scholars have argued that “there is no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and Quran's numerous references to the emergence of life in the universe,” and also that “god-directed “evolution” [7]. Therefore, hopefully my opponent is willing to change his views and recognize that his religion does not contradict modern science. Vote PRO 1. http://www.evolutionnews.org... (creationist website) 2. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu... 3. http://humanorigins.si.edu... 4. http://www.dhbailey.com... 5. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org... 6. http://www.nature.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...