Evolution: Philosophically stupid.

To begin I agree with the definitions which Con has given for both limb and feature and species. MY ARGUMENT IN RELATION TO MY OPPOENTS. Con describes a creature without limbs, however I would consider that no creature is without limbs since the limb is needed to produce new features, in this case the only limb this creature has it's torso. Which a more complex creature would have limbs attached to that limb, the torso. In this case Con uses a sphere shaped limb which has no other limbs attached. He describes a new limb evolving as a bump on the offspring which it's species may later use to push it's self off of the ground. This is a mutation, since it is not normal for this bump to develop on this single limb creature in the womb, it therefore will not become successful, since the bump is not being developed enough. And only for this particular single limb creature. Because it is not successful, it will cause the creature to die rather than to breed Which will not affect the species rate of reproduction. Even if the single limb creature did breed, it does not mean it's offspring will inherit the bump. An example of this is when two adult dwarfs have children, and all the children are fully developed. Proving that their dwarf gene or the singled limb creature did not have a successful limb, rather it was a feature which it's current limb developed in the womb. Unlike humans with morals, this lesser complex species will kill off it's single limb creature with the bump by simply being better at surviving. Relating back to my first argument, that an individual creature cannot evolve a new feature because it cannot evolve a new limb, to begin with Con did not say how a bump would appear or develop, rather he speculated that a bump would evolve. Rather improving on it's current features it has already for example: Increasing it's skin density or developing a larger jaw, if at all it has one? So features can mutate, but since the species as a whole does not have limbs because, rather only features, there are no limbs which the species as a whole can evolve BRAND NEW features. Con explains that wings do not suddenly appear, that is true, but what is also true is that they don't even begin to develop except in the womb. Again the wing would be a totally new limb with new features, like the ability to fly or in some rare cases, hover. Con mentions that some humans have webbed feet, however they aren't actual webbed feet like a frog or toad would possess. Since the webbed feet found on a few human can be removed, and once removed will not grow back. Unlike the frog or toad, which when either frog or toad reproduce, the offspring which survive to adulthood will have webbed feet because they are best suited for its environment. If for example a mutated one with no webbed feet survived, then it would so happen that there would be an even worse defect which has mutated the other, now dead offspring. And the one with webbed feet, if to breed, would give birth to eggs with frogs or toads that do have webbed feet. The argument clearly fails due to this. And that for this unlikely occurrence to continue for millions of years, is almost an impossibility. There would have to be a sudden change in environment which would benefit frogs or toads without webbed feet. And a sudden change in environment does not mean webbed feet would be insufficient, however if a web environment suddenly changed into a hot environment with no water at all, every frog and toad would die with ten's of minutes. Next, Con mentions that there are very visible examples, however having two heads or six fingers is nothing new, rather it is the same limb/feature. (a particular creature has both limb and feature, for if you had your arm cut off, you would say, "You chopped off my limb." Or, "You chopped off my feature." But with a species, they only have features. since a species is never seen, rather a individual within a species.) There is nothing new, this has clearly shown me that Con has not quite grasped the concept I am arguing for. Let me explain again. A feature is related to a species, for example: the ability to bark. All dogs can bark in general. A limb is only related to an individual creature because the word limb is precise and, it belongs only to that creature, whereas every creature in the species has the same feature as a particular creature. All dogs have tails in general, but a particular dog has a tail which is the limb belonging to that precise dog. Therefore, because of these definitions, evolution has a problem, how? Because to evolve BRAND NEW features as a whole species, a particular creature belonging to that species must developed a BRAND NEW limb in the womb or egg. And at the same time as the new limb evolves, the new feature will be there as soon as the new limb is developed. For an example, if a pig was to evolve wings, it would also inherit the ability to fly. However the wings would have to be very powerful to lift the weight of the pig. So in conclusion of this paragraph, for a species to evolve, a particular creature within that species would need to evolve a BRAND NEW limb to feature BRAND NEW features. My opponent goes on to suggest there is a wealth of evidence, but he has failed to show any, rather just say there is. He says there is a mountain of evidence in DNA and in the fossil record, however do not be fooled, he is merely relating the fact, for if macro evolution were to exist, it would probably be found in these things, such as DNA or the fossil record. Yet I haven't got any evidence of that from my opponent. Jawless fish: There is a clear distinction between a fish with jaws and one without jaws. A feature can vary, for example: A jaw become stronger, so it can tear through flesh, but a fishes jaw will never crush metal. Just like in the same way some insects have become resistant to some bugs sprays, but a bug will never become resistant to a sledge hammer. The notion that evolution can create features has not been proved because it has not been observed that a precise creature within a species can evolve a limb and therefore a new feature. By saying a bump or something as useless as that is a new limb or a new feature isn't true, since a new limb or feature MUST be useful right away for it to be successful, in the same way, it would be foolish if a business were to buy 12 thousand rubbish products, the business would suffer because it have given away money for rubbish products which will not sell well at all, therefore the product will be taken off the shelves and given away. In that they will never be produced again. Unless the needs of the buyers change, and that would be like getting rid of the bicycle for a something that does not work in the same way, and thus humans would not, for some reason or another, to travel. CONCLUSION: My opponent has not explained how a limb could evolve from a precise creature and thus affect the entire species to evolve into a BRAND NEW species. Therefore my argument remains the same.