Evolution

1. My opponent evidently didn't realize that what I mentioned in C5 about the fossil record shows the transformation of animals overtime. All of the homo- fossils that have been found are also widely accepted to be transitional, as you move down the line of evolution (monkey --> homo- --> human (homo Erectus- by the way while I am on this subject, it is because these fossils are transitional that they are all given the prefix of homo-) 2. My opponent's second contention is simply several claims and with no actual evidence (purely speculatory) (his one source is a blog- which as many debaters know that IN NO WAY is that a reliable source for a card of anytime based on the fact that anyone [including me] could write a blog with what I want- ie less reliable than wikipedia). First I want to bring up that yes lucy was, in the form she was found as, in fact very ape like. But this can't be dismissed and "nearly all experts" actually agree she is not an ape but rather Australopithecus africanus- and not an ape. (. http://www.mnsu.edu... - . http://en.wikipedia.org... - . http://ftp.ccccd.edu...) [Minus wikipedia these are all 100% legitimate . edu (ie school) sources]. My opponent, with outrightly stating, implies Lucy was either "planted" by biologists or was a pet monkey. But if we simply look to the carbon dating of the Lucy skeleton - 3.2 million years - considering the concept that it was one's pet when that idea was more likely than not even conceived, this argument is ludicrous. Also, my opponent provides no evidence of footprints, but even if there were, this means absolutely nothing as someone might have walked over Lucy without realizing it. But even if just for one moment let this be true, one cannot deny the obvious relations of later homos- thus its quite apparent the correlation between early homo- and now is apparent still. One more thing I want to bring up before I move on is my opponents sources were (and he said himself he was:) religious or from religious sources. While I respect my opponents beliefs, I am sure any debater on this website would agree with me that religions has little of a place here. The reason being, debate originated on these subjects in congress- where there is an explicit separation of church and state- thus debate on this or any subject should follow the same guidelines. 3. My opponents third contention is more likely than not his most speculative and simply unsupported point he has. He first purports that a science textbook is not a legitimate source. But I am sure any: professor, congressmen, college student, parent and myself would wholeheartedly disagree with this. In fact, one could clearly state with substantial point and evidence that in fact a textbook is by far the most reliable source we have in the modern age and not all of us have access to libraries, universities, or other higher-information/education centers that may be considered the same level of a textbook. Then my opponents makes highly illogical leaps in his logic- that all scientific textbooks are written 1. by evolutionists and 2. are thus unreliable, as they are forced to teach such information. First off, my opponent, with 2. contradicts 1. The reason is that if even one person is against evolution who writes or contributes to a science textbook is against evolution this falls. And since he purports that some are forced to write "against their will" evidently some are not evolutionists. Thus a textbook is easily the most legitimate source one can offer to you without being religious to the point where is ensures that the writer is not a so called "evolutionists". 4. My opponents purports that wisdom teeth loss in numbers are due to something with the population. I am willing, first, to assume my opponent missed my point entirely. Over the past several years, as many people are aware of, people are being increasingly born without wisdom teeth as they were vestigial structures (which I will review later) and became unneeded. Thus we evolved out of a need of them and thus less are being born without such teeth. Thus, evolution, in this small way as an example, is occurring. I am next willing to accept that yes, if you look out the window you will not witness a man turning into a monkey. But it takes millions of years for this process to occur, facts and sources of which were stated in 1. -Opponent dropped my vestigial structure argument --> extend across the flow 5. Finally, I will clarify for my opponent who doesn't seem to understand what fossil record is: (if he has followed the link he may have been informed but I will clarify further in case there was a misconception) (again the source is . http://anthro.palomar.edu... about a quarter way down) " The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones. It addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory. -Anthro. palomar. edu] " I believe it to be unnecessary to clarify this card anymore- if the voters and my opponent could visit this page I believe they will find more than enough substantial information of how the fossil record further supports my contention and my case. Before I close, if my opponent so wishes to argue against them and have me refute again in later rounds, more points that prove evolution I have not yet brought up include: -Chemical and Anatomic Similarities -Geographic Distribution -Genetic Change Again, if the voters or my opponent so wish to, information is on this page: . http://anthro.palomar.edu...