Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

Note: Before I begin, a couple of corrections in what Con defines as the creation model. In the 2nd aspect, I would change the word species to created kinds. I go into more detail in my argument below.Also in the 3rd aspect, while I can't speak for all creationists, but the Bible's account claims that two of every kind of animal was onboard the Ark so we believe that dinosaurs were indeed on board the Ark. Although there is nothing wrong in saying that maybe dinosaurs died not too longer after the events of Noah's flood.Let me begin by first introducing the two models. If Con has problems with the way I introduce the evolution model, he/she may correct me when he/she post his/her argument without penalty.First off is the evolutionary tree of life: Evolution claims that all species stem from a single-celled organism [1].On the other hand, we have the creation orchard. [2]Which states that all species stem from the original kinds created during God’s seven days of creation. We creationists define kinds as a term that is a larger grouping than species. The origin of kinds comes from Genesis 1:11-12 “And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds” and further more in Genesis 1:21 and 1:24-25. For example, dogs would be defined as a biblical kind. [3] [4]It might seem “out there” that all species stemmed from these created kinds, however, species can arise rather quickly. For example, most dog breeds have arisen in the last couple of centuries. [5]I believe my opponent and I can agree that natural selection occurs and can create new species. Both in the evolution and the creation model, natural selection plays a huge part. We will probably disagree however, how much change natural selection can create. Natural selection cannot create species outside a created kind. Dogs will remain dogs, cats will remain cats. The underlying problem is the issue of genetic information. For evolution to work, new genetic information must be introduced to the population. Natural selection is a destructive process that selects the traits that are best suited for environment. Whereas the traits not suited for the environment get eliminated, therefore information is lost. Evolutionists have looked to mutations to fix this problem, but the problem is that mutations do not create new information in the genome. Mutations or copying mistakes of DNA destroy functional genes not creating them. For example, a mutation in the p53 gene disables the production of a protein responsible for regulation cell growth. And when cells uncontrollably grow and reproduce, you get cancer [6]. Even beneficial mutations such as lactose intolerance are due to the destruction of functional genes. Lactose intolerance is caused when there is a mutation in the LCT gene that is responsible for producing the lactase enzyme which breaks down lactose [7]. Therefore mutations and natural selection do not produce the type of change necessary for evolution. In fact, because it is observed that only genetic information can be lost, two things can be implied.1. Because genetic info can’t arise naturally, it can be assumed that all genetic information was created in the beginning2. A more recent origin of all living things.To refute my claim is simple; provide an example where a mutation has increased the amount of information in the genome. Another issue with the evolutionary model is living fossils. For example, the horseshoe crab which still exists today remains completely identical to the fossils 445 million years old [8]. The fact that such organisms don’t change in these huge timescales proves a problem for evolution. Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and an evolutionists recognizes this as a problem when he wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” [9] The fact that modern creatures have coexisted with “ancient” species affirms the creation account that all kinds of animals were created at the same time which brings me to my next point.Because the creation model claims that all “kinds” have coexisted together, it is often ridiculed because it was thought of as preposterous that ancient creatures such as dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans. However, a strong case can be built that the two coexist together. I’ll be mainly talking about dinosaurs since they are a popular example to ridicule creationists. Archeological evidence exists implies that ancient civilizations knew about dinosaurs long before the term was coined. As I’ll be taking an archeological argument, I must relate it to the resolution. The creation model claims that all “kinds” were made at the same time and that all species stem from these animals. Archeological evidence is like a fossil record that can affirm that both humans and dinosaurs were created at the same time.For example, Incan burial stones contain what appear to be specific dinosaurs. For example, the one below depicts a Triceratops And this one appears to be a Stegosaurus. [9]Another piece of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted lies in soft tissue found in dinosaur bones [10]. The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen, hemoglobin, and osteocalcin [11]. A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years [12]. However, it is believed that dinosaurs lived in warm moist environments that would quickly degrade such proteins. While we are on the topic of fossils, they also prove another problem for evolution. Darwin has predicted that we would find numerous transitional forms that transcend the biblical kinds. However, in the millions of fossils uncovered since then, there is rather a lack of transitional forms. Evolution claims that many modern species today can be linked to a common ancestor that would link the two together (ex. Amphibians and tetrapods), however what we have are a few, disputed examples of transitional fossils.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)[2]http://creation.com...[3] The Holy Bible[4] http://creation.com...[5]http://www.livescience.com...[6] http://www.cancer.net...[7] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://news.discovery.com...[9] http://www.creationists.org...[10] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...[11] https://news.ncsu.edu...[12] http://www.biochemist.org...