Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

Thanks for your rebuttals, and also for agreeing to argue based on the first definition you provided earlier for Evolution: “Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.” I noticed that you are not referencing the Richard Feynman video in your explanation of what a scientific theory is. I don't see why you're ignoring it, for I assure you that the Scientific Method has not changed since Feynman gave that lecture about half a century ago. I also made it clear at the beginning of the debate that it would be the reference for determining what a scientific theory should be. In Con's first argument, he defines a scientific theory as the following: "A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.” Con says that he must show how Evolution must fit this definition to fulfill his burden; I disagree. Con's burden is to show how Evolution fits the guidelines explained in the Richard Feynman. Nevertheless, I will show how Evolution does not meet even Con's own definition of scientific theory. Let's look at the definition of Evolution again: “Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.” Again, as I pointed out in the previous round, the first sentence of this definition is nonsense in the context of a definition of Evolution. You cannot reference the concept being defined in its definition! So now, all we have for the complete definition of Evolution is the following: “It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.” Is this a valid scientific theory according to Con's definition? (In the previous round, I already showed why it is not a valid theory according to Doctor Feynman. Con dropped those arguments by not responding to them.) No, Evolution does not meet Con's own criterion! It fails to “explain a specific set of phenomena”. What specific set of phenomena could Evolution possibly explain? The answer is simple: none. The simple declaration that populations of organisms evolve, but not individual ones, does not explain anything. It's merely a vague, indefinite and unfalsifiable guess, as explained in the previous round. Con has an entire section of his argument dedicated to explaining why he thinks Evolution is a valid theory, but since it isn't even a theory to begin with, those arguments fail to get off the ground. Nevertheless, I will bite. Let's look at Con's first piece of evidence. #1: Lenski's E. coli experiment This is a very interesting piece of evidence for Con to bring up! You will realize why in a minute. Remember how I complained about the invalidity of the 2nd guess of Evolution? Namely, that individuals do not evolve, and I remarked how it's not any good because falsifying it requires proving a negative? Well, this experiment actually met that burden! Evolution predicted that individuals do not evolve. But clearly, at least one individual bacterium in Lenski's experiment evolved the ability to metabolize citrate! (1) (I'm confused as to why Con repeatedly says nitrate instead of citrate. Maybe I'm missing something here, or maybe it's just a typo.) If you watched the Feynman video, you will remember what the doctor said about what it means for a theory's guess to not agree with experiments: It's wrong. In this case, Lenski's E. coli experiment has prematurely proven Evolution wrong! Thus, Evolution does not meet Con's own standards for qualifying as valid. It neither “makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy”, nor “is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results [like the Lenski experiment]”. #2: Fossils Let's remind ourselves how Evolution is defined: “It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.” Con says that Evolution is supported by “the fact that at certain times we have observed in the fossil record that species arise and often go extinct.” This statement is meaningless in the context of Evolution. Species is not an objective classification of organisms, and is merely an artifact of trying to artificially assign organisms to specific labels. Therefore, it cannot be used as evidence of Evolution. I'm sure I caught some readers off-guard with that statement, so let me give a few examples of why the species label is subjective and warrant to change at any time, purely at the whims of those who assign the labels. The generally understood definition of species is “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” Let's ignore, for a second, the fact that we cannot determine whether 2 fossils represent organisms that were capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding, for the obvious fact that they are dead. Contrary to what you might have been led to believe, the species label is applied inconsistenly. For example, the Viceroy and the Red-Spotted Purple are classified as 2 different species of butterflies, yet they can (and do) interbreed and produce fertile offspring.(4) The Red-Spotted Purple will also breed with the White Admiral, another separate species.(2)(3)(5) Another example is the labeling of the Eastern Meadowlark and the Western Meadowlark. All these birds look the same, and interbreed; yet, one population is given one species label, and the rest, a different label. (8) What does all this mean? Simply, the species label is subjective, and has no use when trying to find objective evidence to support Evolution. Since the species label can be applied to any population of organisms at whim, the claim that “species [in the fossil record] arise and go extinct” is meaningless. This is illustrated rather comically in the conflict between the University of Berkely and the Audubon organization. In Berkely's “Evolution 101” course, it teaches that the Eastern & Western Meadowlark are 2 separate species specifically because they don't interbreed.(6) But according to the Audubon site, they actually do interbreed!(7) They can't both be right! #3: DNA similarity Con says the extreme genetic similarities between people and chimpanzees is difficult, if not impossible, to explain without Evolution. First of all, Evolution, as Con defined it, does not even try to explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees (which is what he seems to be implying happened.) Secondly, here's a very easy alternative explanation for why they have similar DNA: they look similar to people! That wasn't very difficult to explain, and certainly not impossible. Before I turn it over to my opponent, I'd like to remind voters that Con has dropped all arguments I made in the 2nd round based on Feynman's guidelines. (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://entnemdept.ufl.edu... (3) https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu... (4) http://images.peabody.yale.edu... (5) http://catdir.loc.gov... (6) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (7) http://birds.audubon.org... (8) http://www.nature.com...