Does evolution makes sense

The Fossil Record Con makes 3 arguments here. Polystrate fossils Lack of Transitional fossils Similarities can also be from a common creator 1. Polystrate Fossils. Con says that there's trees that go through many layers that are different ages. Con gives no citation, nor how old these layers are. Polystrate fossils are a result of sudden deposition. Sudden deposition is no problem at all. A single flood can deposit sediment several feet thick. The buried trees in the sediment don't die, the trunks can remain living in there for decades. This problem was solved in the 19th century by John William Dawson "It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position." [1][2] How exactly is it a problem for the sorting of fossils? 2. Lack of transitional fossils The only way you can claim this is if you have a twisted understanding of what transitional means. Transitional doesn't mean half-dog half-cat, but biologists and paleontologists define a transitional fossil as the transitional features of a fossil. Archaeopteryx, Hyracotherium, and Ambulocetus are all examples of transitional species. In a technical sense, every living thing is a transitional fossil. Since we're all in the middle of a past and future species. 3. Common designer? First, this is a straw man fallacy. My argument was from the sorting of the fossils, not that they look alike. Second, it's not that they're just similar, it's the particular type of similarities (the nested hierarchy [3][4]). Whales and Fish have the same designer, but the whale moves its tail up and down, while fish move if from side to side [5]. If a common designer did exists, we should see the whale moving its tail in the same way as the fish. The reason why the whale needs an up and down tail is to reach the surface in order to obtain oxygen. If there was a common designer the whale shouldn't need oxygen at all! Third, the reason why humans use similar structures is because of finite resources, finite creativity, finite time. The creator you believe exists, isn't limited, so why should we assume similar structures will exist with him? Endogenous retroviruses Con ignores the main point of the argument. Since genetic information changes, with enough time the ERVs wouldn't be similar to the ones of our early ancestors. However evolutionists fail to provide a rate in which and ERV can change This doesn't refute the argument and is irrelevant. Evolution isn't constant, so how would the change in ERVs be constant? Organisms will change when the environment changes. Not in a constant rate. If I purpose there's a car that can go up to 200 mph, would a valid response to the “What's the rate of change”? A rate of something has no bearing on the actual existence of it. and they fail to provide a mechanism in which and ERV can change so drastically It's undisputed that genetic information changes. Mutations (a known mechanism for change) happens 128 times per human zygote [6]. No one is claiming drastic changes. and pass it to the next generation It's well known that genetic information gets passed down. Con claims this argument assumes evolution, but he doesn't explain how it does. It's not assuming evolution, if you have a basic understanding of genetics you'll understand how it's evidence of evolution. Con's arguments No beneficial mutations. Con erroneously claims that no beneficial mutations have occurred. This is false, there's bacteria that through mutations, have the ability to digest nylon [7]. It's been demonstrated that bacteria that's resistant to drugs, is a result of mutation and not adaption. Since the population started with just one chromosome, all variations came from mutations [8]! The CKR5 gene produces a protein that determines what can enter a cell. An allele produced by a single nucleotide deletion in this CKR5 gene, is resistant to HIV[9]. A mutation in the LPR5 gene causes high bone density [10]. The process of mutation has been observed to increase information in simulations too [11]. The process of adding information is simple. A gene duplication happens, then a mutation changes it [12]. Con claims most mutations are harmful. This is wrong, most are neutral. It's estimated there's around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation of humans [13]. Con also claims multiple mutations happening are too rare. All there needs to be is slight mutations over time. Natural Selection Con is making a fallacious category mistake. He's putting natural selection in the category of changing genetic information. Natural selection only selects what's already there, it doesn't create. Macro happens with a whole bunch of Micros. If Con wishes to claim that Microevolution happens, but Macro doesn't, then he needs to show there's a barrier for large change. If there's no barrier Macroevolution will happen with time. Look at the picture below This is how Micro becomes Macro. It also answers your transitional fossil objection. It shows why we shouldn't find a half-dog half-cat fossil. The resolution is affirmed Now to Con Sources _________________________________________________________________ [1] Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180) [2] http://www.talkorigins.org... [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... [5] http://www.dtmag.com... [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [7] http://www.nmsr.org... [8] http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov... [9] Dean, M. Carrington, M, et al., 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862. See also: Cohen, J., 1996. Receptor mutations help slow disease progression. Science 273: 1797-1798. [10] Boyden, Lynn M., Ph.D, Junhao Mao, Ph.D., Joseph Belsky, M.D., Lyle Mitzner, M.D., Anita Farhi, R.N., Mary A. Mitnick, Ph.D., Dianqing Wu, Ph.D., Karl Insogna, M.D., and Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., 2002. High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor-Related Protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002. [11] http://www.pnas.org... [12] http://www.sciencemag.org... [13] Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304. http://www.genetics.org...