There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

Thanks for the debate Pro. I'll respond to Pro's last round, and then conclude this mobile goalpost of a debate. Pro posits: "To make the car lighter and faster, the steel body is replaced with one made of aluminum. While a change was made to the car, a "new structure" was not invented." My response: This analogy of cars :: organisms always fails, because cars are made by an external, non-genetically related entity. ALL organisms are descended genetically from a pre-existing organism, so new genetic structures descend genetically too. On a car, any new structure would have to be created non genetically, mutually exclusive to pre-existing structures. Cars don't reproduce cars, so cars don't reproduce new structures for cars. Also, by putting a different, aluminum structure on to the car, the car now has a new structure. Pro adds: "Now for type 1 and type 2 alterations in regards to mutation." My response: Now for some BS that's pseudo-scientific and irrelevant to mutations' effect on driving evolution, the resolution of the debate. Pro just made up this idea of type 1 and type 2 alterations, and readers should not find it to be a coincidence that Pro did not provide sources that show this arbitrary distinction between alterations. Pro's pseudoscience became very clear here. There are no type 1 or type 2 types of alterations; there are changes that get passed on, and there are changes that don't. Berkeley does an excellent job of explaining the difference between somatic changes that can be misconstrued as evolution-inducing and germline changes that are the ultimate source of genetic variation. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Pro requests: "Con needs to provide more info on their hypothetical germline mutation to distinguish how exactly "genetic compatibility" is being increased without altering any phenotype." My response: You have misrepresented what I said. I said without altering any OBSERVABLE phenotype. What you keep requesting is for a new eye to form from a mutation, which implies a highly observable phenotype change. So, I pointed out that there could be less noticeable genetic changes, ones that don't change an OBSERVABLE phenotype, that still increase fitness and drive evolution. Some germline mutations can have a phenotypic change occur AFTER pubescence, like the acidity of sperm. If sperm is too acidic, it may not be able to impregnate a member of the species. Mutations that lead to this acidity would be detrimental. Mutations that lead to a more compatible sperm PH level, would then allow for successful reproduction and likelier fitness. These changes would not be observable until reproductive age. I hope readers actually read the papers for what they're truly worth, and I hope people understand the real mechanisms of evolution, not just pseudo-scientific interpretations of what mechanisms should be. To conclude this ever-expanding debate, I'm going to try something different. I am going to negate the resolution ONLY using Pro's words...here we go: Pro: "In the third article provided...it is possible that a novel structure that provided an advantage was created...there are mutations that provide benefit but do not create novel structures...as it is possible for mutation to have an effect on evolution other than just the creation of purely novel structures." Pro: "If a mutation occurs, then by definition a new DNA strand will exist...Con stated that novel structures were created since DNA was changed, and so the altered DNA could be considered a "new structure"...when Con writes that the altered DNA is "new" they are technically correct." Pro: "The authors of paper 1...did in fact measure the mutations" effects on fitness...the authors determined that that group had spontaneously increased fitness....the authors directly observed increases in fitness. This is true." Pro: "The details needed for an informative display of mutation"s ability to create novel structures are again: the change in the DNA code that occurred, the phenotypic alteration, and how this increased the bacteria"s fitness. Paper 2 gave an informative description of a mutation that confers fitness...the exact code change - Adenine at location 3853 was replaced with Cytosine. The phenotypic result - Aspartic acid was replaced with Alanine in the G surface protein. How this provided advantage - the ability to grow in the presence of an antibody, I1 mAb, at concentrations that inhibit viruses without this mutation. This is a great example of a beneficial mutation described in detail." http://www.pnas.org...