Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

Thanks Pro.Okay let’s go through some vestigial organs because Pro did not show they all had functions. First off, wisdom teeth; which Pro does concedes came from an earlier time (although he does not concede that this period of time could have been all that long). The PAX9 gene is a new gene found in a few select humans groups, like the Tasmanian Aboriginals, that stops the growth of Wisdom teeth. We can trace that tooth back in the fossil record some 2 million plus years. Look at the skulls of Homo Erectus, who have no problem fitting wisdom teeth in, and indeed would have used them for a more-plant-based diet. If that’s not macro-evolution I don’t know what is.Next, male nipples. Pro raises a ruckus over a minute stipulation over the exact moment of gender selection. I won’t get caught up in this strawman argument; I know we are conceived male or female – that’s not what I was referring to; we develop in the womb as a female fetus for 6 weeks until the Y Chromosome kicks in, which is why occasionally women are born with Androgen insensitivity syndrome, what happens when the Y chromosome is impaired. I even said that, “Sexual differentiation occurs at about 6 weeks – until then human fetuses are female.” Although I miswrote the term ‘added’, I should have said ‘kicked in’ or something. We can trace the development of sex chromosomes. Next, the vestiges Pro forgot: the semilunar fold, flightless birds, homologous structures, sexual organs that remain unused in dandelions, hind legs on whales, etc. I won’t bring up other specific examples because it is the last round, but there are countless examples.I’m having difficulty understanding the meaning of Pro’s paragraph. We had a common ancestor, yes, and we all descended from this common ancestor, yes, but you lose me with the rest of this argument. Don’t put words in my mouth. We descended from an original ancestor because we all (everything) share 23 proteins. If you mean a common ancestor for mammals, that is a different matter. We are almost the same as chimps because we are very similar, that much is obvious. Our shared common ancestor (possibly Sahelanthropus, some 7 million years ago) is what makes us so similar. Us and mice shared a common ancestor some 80 Million years ago. For creatures like a fly, of course we are not that similar. Our shared ancestor is farther away than a common ancestor with Chimps. Genes“He did not even explain how organisms can get new genes.” That’s just uncalled for. I listed several proposed methods of gene development, (Gene duplication, Whole-Genome Duplication, Individual/Group Gene Duplication, etc.). You never addressed the latter two. I did address those problems: The indefinite regress problem: “Usually this is in the form of either (1) junk, harmless additional nucleotides, (2) deleterious, harmful additional nucleotides (which either kill the orgamism or render it unable to reproduce), (3) beneficial additional nucleotides, which (rarely) code for new, helpful traits, and (4) the wholesale duplication of genes or portions of DNA, usually through unplanned chemical processes.” The Conservation Problem: This is a non-problem. As I pointed out before, operating under the presupposition that natural selection takes place, it’s easy to see how certain genes can rise and fall, or can even be carried over and given a new purpose. Common genes show common ancestors. Genetic drift may also contribute to a lack of genetic variation. The Founder Effect also contributes – an observable theory that shows that new populations don’t give wide variations in genes. My ‘bottom up’ design comment makes no assumptions, and assumptions that are observed are projected, I’d say you have to elaborate but you no longer can, ahah. “a creator can’t have a creator (or beginning) if he is outside of the dimension of time (and space)” – Another classic paradox. Either he exists in time and space or he does not. If something exists outside the realm of time and space and has no evidence for its existence then how can you make any kind of assumption that it does exist, unless we play semantics and redefine what ‘exists’ means, and by the time we get to that point what isn’t possible. If he does exist outside time and space explain all the stories of god working miracles, creating the world, etc.Cambrian Explosion“Even Richard Dawkins, practically the most famous macroevolutionary activist today agrees.”This isn’t even a quote. It’s just conjecture. I think it’s safe to say Dawkins certainly would never agree to support your position. As Dawkins said, “This great phylum of worms includes the parasitic flukes and tapeworms, which are of great medical importance. My favourites, however, are the free-living tubellarian worms, of which there are more than four thousand species; that’s about as numerous as all the mammal species put together…They are common, both in water and on land, and presumably have been common for a very long time. You’d expect, therefore, to see a rich fossil history. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found. The Platyhelminthes, to a worm, are ‘already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.’ But in this case, ‘the very first time they appear’ is not the Cambrian but today. Do you see what this means, or at least ought to mean for creationists? Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilise as all other animals. During all the centuries when all those bony or shelly animals were depositing happily alongside them, but without leaving any significant trace of their presence in the rocks. What, then, is so special about gaps in the record of these animals that do fossilise, given that the past history of the flatworms amounts to one big gap: even though the flatworms, by the creationists’ own account, have been living for the same length of time? If the gap before the Cambrian Explosion is used as evidence that most animals suddenly sprang into existence in the Cambrian, exactly the same ‘logic’ should be used to prove that the flatworms sprang into existence yesterday. Yet this contradicts the creationist’s belief that flatworms were created during the same creative week as everything else. You cannot have it both ways. This argument, at a stroke, completely destroys the creationist case that the Precambrian gap in the fossil record weakens the evidence for evolution.”BeheBehe has been so slaughtered for this paper. If Miller will not do, you can check out a vast list of responses here – http://infidels.org...Pro continues to act as if Behe was uncontested. I first posted a response to Behe back in the first round I wrote rebuttals in. I followed that up with a deeper dissection. Pro also acts as if the work of a single unanimously mistrusted scientist somehow refutes the evidences I presented in the genome, in the fossil record, in our own bodies, in homologues structures, in carefully dated specific fossils, etc. Pro continued to bring up a mysterious Chicago conference from 1980 that he never backed up with a theory, a discredited scientist, and the odd hole in genomic theory. What’s the difference between us? I have carefully dated fossils to back up Macroevolution and he has some gene theory. What is more likely? That the genetic field has some developments to go…or that the entire fossil record and evolutionary theory must be completely re-evaluated? Sources http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com... http://skepdic.com...