Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

Rebuttals to Pro's points: 1) Micro/Macro Evolution I see no use in these "micro/macro evolution" categories. This is just over complicating an issue, evolution is simply evolution. If it occurs on a micro level, then it can also occur on a macro level simply from the continual build up of the micro level. They would just pile up into significant changes. I would also like Pro to explain what constitutes a "kind" within plants and animals. What's the process of identifying "kinds" and how can you tell "kinds" apart. In science we have a diagram referred to as "The Tree of Life", where we start with the unknown original, common ancestor and map up the similarities and differences of life from that ancestor to the species of today. A lot goes into classifying plants, animals, and so on; lots of nuanced knowledge needed that even I don't know (though I wish I had the time to learn). 2) Mutations Yes, mutations are mistakes. However, mistakes can be beneficial, this is key to many art forms as well as science and anything involving innovation. Yes mutations can form diseases, deformities, and death but that does not mean mutations can't be beneficial. Mutations are classified as thus: Any changes on a genetic level, whether they be detrimental or beneficial. These changes can be passed onto offspring, while others may not, depending on the mutation and whether or not they are a dominant or submissive trait. Hell, even getting a tan is a form of mutation, as your skin pigments are forced to change as they are exposed to UV radiation from the sun. This results in darker skin tones. Is it temporary? Yes, but given enough time the tanning can stay within your makeup and end up a dominate trait which can be inherited. As skin pigmentation is a trait passed down (evidence shown by white couples giving birth to white children and black couples given birth to black children, so on and so on). I'm also gonna disregard the Theodosius quote because equating biological functions and mechanical functions just does not work. Find me a steel building or a copper-gear watch that can be injured, healed, replicated, and can adapt like an organism and then we can talk. But at this point, organisms and machines do not work the same, therefore any comparisons are null. And with that study Pro provided: I am not surprised at the results. I mean, radiation is some scary stuff. All irradiation does is fill up our junk DNA structures with junk info and waste material and that eats it away fast, causing more possible chances of harmful mutations to occur within the readable DNA structures. That's just bad science. Now, as for beneficial mutation examples. To mention my previous, opening argument about bacteria. Given enough exposure to antibiotics, bacteria can build up resistances and immunities to said anti-biotics that are being used. Thus, the bacteria gains a beneficial mutation at a genetic level. Also, just a heads up, complexity rarely means anything good in biology. 3) No Evolution in the Past I find it funny how we share genetic and anatomical "similarities" with pigs, but we are in no way related. That makes no sense. We have to have genetic relations with pigs, otherwise we can't use their cells to develop medication. We would of had to use human pancreases to make insulin and no other animal's. To have genetic "similarities" is to have genetic relations, and to have genetic relations is to be related. And once again, comparing organisms to machines is pointless and holds no water. And what Pro seems to fail to realize is where Evolution and Creation comes from. Evolution was discovered and is studied by scientists through observations and empirical, forensic evidence. Creation, on the other hand, was proposed and asserted as a claim by nomadic people living in tents and caves who have no knowledge of nature and is believed by people who don't want to bother learning and rather have blind faith. This is not how science operates, we just don't accept things blindly, we have to test and proof or disproof. Sadly, the concept of a deity is untestable, so science just won't bother with it. For example, think of the Loch Ness monster. It was proposed to have exist by the account of two men walking around Loch Ness and a picture of the beast. Sure, we all believed because what was stopping us? We had no way to disprove it. So for years we believed it was true or tried to disprove its existence. Then, come to find out, the original picture that proposed the assertion that Nessy existed was doctored. And if the original assertion was falsified, then it's logical to conclude that Loch Ness monster, is a lie. We have proven many fallacies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies within the many translations of various religious texts. Though I suppose for this debate the focus on Christianity shall be paramount. Within my list of sources, I'll provide an example of an inconsistency within The New Testament. And since the Holy Bible asserts Creationism, yet has historical inaccuracies and is inconsistent with itself, it is not a credible text for scientific knowledge, therefore Creationism as proposed by Christianity (and Judaism and Islam by extension) is not a valid scientific study, hypothesis, or theory. The Theory of Evolution is built upon observations and facts and was set up as an explanation to a natural phenomenon that has been noticed within nature. It has not been disproven and has in fact been built upon and improved. It is not set up to worship deities, explain the beginning/end of time and the universe, or hold up any doctrines. It's not set up to be a religion. Once again, organisms and machines do not operate the same. This point is invalid. And again, we cannot be genetically similar to things and not be related to them on a genetic level. To be similar on a genetic level is to be related. That's how genetics work. And now we move onto the weak passing off of different human species that Pro purports. I will give him credit on one thing: I never heard of Neanderthals being humans plagued by rickets and arthritis. That part is new to me, however this is highly illogical. If such a large group of people were so horribly afflicted with rickets and arthritis, then why not everyone? I mean, it had to be very progressive and aggressive if it were to create such a vast difference between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens in physical capabilities and appearance as well as mental capacity. I also love how Pro waves off Homo Floresiensis as "microcephalic pygmies", when no bones have ever been found with Homo Floresiensis to suggest that it was strange to be really short and have a really small head. Almost as if it was normal for them because, probably through environmental suggestions and biological processes, they became something slightly different from us and became their own thing. And onto Homo Erectus. Sadly Homo Erectus is so far back, that it is rather hard to keep accurate information them, it being the earliest known species of creatures to have human-like qualities and features. Also the fact that Homo Erectus is pretty wide spread, and we only manage to find subspecies that relate to Homo Erectus but not purely it. I mean, consider the fact that Homo Erectus fossils are spread over two continents (Africa and Asia, Europe is an iffy still) and has succeeded in thriving nearly nine times longer than our own species' existence; that's a lot of getting around and changing. And just to say, Java Man is named "Homo Erectus Erectus" as it might be the purest form of Homo Erectus that we know of, and Peking man is named "Homo Erectus Pekinensis". They are a part of the Homo Erectus species, yes, but they are also different since the course of Homo Erectus' existence is spread far out and lasted long which provided plenty of genetic change to cause various subspecies to occur. We have various subspecies of animals today, it's not uncommon to happen. Finally, on one thing to rebut the bacteria statement. If such a protein was so crucial to life and reproduction, I doubt mutations that would harm said protein would be effective, as the bacteria with said mutation would be dead or sterile. Now, if a mutation were to have formed in which it just made it resistant or immune to the antibiotics (as mutations typically occur from overcoming environmental obstacles) then it could thrive and be more successful. If antibiotics were not introduced, then there was no challenge to overcome, nothing in its environment it had to best. Therefore, no change and it'll carry on about its day making yours miserable. gaining resistance and immunities against things that'll kill, cripple, harm, or sterilize you are beneficial mutations. 4) Credibility I would first like to respond to the last paragraph Pro had typed up. Whether you believe it or not, this is incredibly relevant to the topic at hand. The Theory of Evolution is a science, it was proposed by scientists, tested by scientists, approved by scientists, and improved by scientists. Whether credible scientists who devote their lives to the field can outright say evolution is not scientific is crucial. If anything, it just gives more credibility to your argument. Now, I don't know much about the men that are quoted above, though Goldschmidt's name is familiar. At any rate, after a quick search I was impressed with their backgrounds. My only complaint about Goldschmidt is his view. I mean, to say all changes lead in dead ends? Many changes can occur, it's ludicrous to say all changes just stop and don't carry on and improve or continue on its own. And the second quote. All laughable in essence. Source below will explain. ___________________________ https://www.khanacademy.org... Tree of Life Contradiction http://humanorigins.si.edu... Human Species http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Benefits