Evolution

I will bold my main points and italicize quotes from sources and underline any quotes from Con.Introduction: I will crystallize my arguments in the order that Con presented them, and then make my own.I. Law of bio genesis. I will concede to Con's definition of the law of bio genesis that life arises from pre-existing life and argue against it. Black Smokers Black Smokers are deep sea vents that are believed to have held the very first forms of life. Researchers from Oregon State University unexpectedly discovered whole ecosystems thriving around a hot vent on the Pacific seafloor. Such vents, where molten rock from inside the Earth's mantle heats seawater to as much as 660 degrees Fahrenheit, could have provided the energy and basic organic molecules needed to spark life. [1] Essentially, what this is saying is that life could have easily started in the deep sea vents that were formed when the Earth was created (because of the gases that Con mentions). This is just one example of a theory that has proved organic molecules and energy can create sufficient life, and they have been located in these areas. Ice Even the coldest ice contains seams of liquid. These watery pockets could have acted as test tubes for the earliest organic reactions. Experiments show that units of RNA—the genetic material that was probably the forerunner to better-known DNA—spontaneously string themselves together in ice, supporting this theory. [1] Ice is another theory that has been proven possible. When the Earth was created, so was ice when water molecules froze. RNA and DNA are not life, but structures that are now used to explain genetics. These structures found in ice prove that life could have come from these two meeting in the ice that acted as a test tube. Summary Looking at my three main points we can see that Con's claim that Gases can't make Life has been disproved. However, who wins on this point is void because it does not contribute to the debate. It contributes to the ideas of the origin of life, not whether or not evolution is real.II. Pacific Golden Plover. Replying to Con's question of How can an animal hatch in Alaska, and know to fly in formation to hit a tiny target hundreds of miles away? I would like to point out a few facts. Birds communicate to: impress and attract a mate declare territorial boundaries identify family members announce the presence of a predator convey information about food etc.[3] This, naturally includes the idea that birds communicate with one another to teach them. As we humans do, birds teach each other, parents to chicks. The parents teach their young where to fly by means of having them follow them. Birds are more intelligent than you think. They are more intelligent, as a class, than the reptiles, and that many species are just as intelligent as mammals of comparable size. [4] Essentially, birds can communicate and work off of instincts to know where to go. The birds do not hatch in Alaska, and know to fly in formation to hit a tiny target hundreds of miles away, they are taught what to do. A bird, instinctively, learns how to fly, and is taught to follow it's parents and other birds. Like humans, birds obviously had to experiment too in the early stages. Of course, there is no scientific evidence of what bird first realized that it should fly one way or the other, it is a logically sound argument that simply enough, when a bird figured out the right path, it taught others. Obviously, there were other birds when the first few found the path, thereby, they were able to learn and thereby evolve with the next generations.III. The Dragonfly.Cross apply my argument that says birds can teach their chicks to this. All animals have a way to communication, even Dragonfly. Without communication, no living organism (except for some plants) would be alive. Dragon-flies are taught how to fly, and can use natural instincts that birds and humans, and all other animals have. (I can elaborate in further rounds upon request). On the point about tadpoles, again, I cross-apply my previous argument in that they are able to learn. Besides, most animal species are protected by their parent until they are able to fend for themselves, this, being for tadpoles, being able to change color and change form because it is how they fend for themselves.IV. The Hippopotamus.No where in con's source does it say that the Hippo chooses to sweat this sunscreen. Hippo skin is virtually hairless and would soon burn when exposed to intense sunlight, but the skin secretes an oily liquid that acts as a sunscreen. [5 (Con's (6))] We can see in this point that the hippo does not chose to have this sweat, but it is a part of it's biological being. The sweat is produced. We humans might have the same like-features on our own body that we know nothing about. The fact is, there is no evidence the the hippo produces the sweat purposefully, it is part of it's biological system.V. Bears Con's argument here is too vague in that he questions how mother bears produce milk from broken down fat just happens through evolution. The point that a bear would stumble out of a cave in spring time and fall on its face, given its lack of muscle strength can be overlooked because this point is about the fat breaking down, not the muscle. Human bodies are not built to hibernate and we do not, so comparing us to the bear is not a logical argument and will be thrown out because we have different biological systems. Black bears can go for as long as 100 days without eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, or exercising. [6] A bear evolves to survive through hibernation because the animal's body temperature drops, and its heartbeat and breathing slow down. It uses very little energy. In the fall, these animals get ready for winter by eating extra food and storing it as body fat. They use this fat for energy while hibernating. [7]VI. ElephantsThe argument can be thrown out that the decreasing diameter could not evolve, for the elephant would not know that was a problem, until it became stuck in the mud because of my point that animals can teach one another. The first elephants to get their feet stuck realized it was an issue and adapted. They then taught the other elephants. On that argument that A designer would need to find tune the mechanics of an elephants trunk can be thrown out, because even though the tasks the elephants can do with their massive trunks are incredible, that does not make them only the product of a creator. Just because my ability to access the internet and debate with you is incredible, it was not due to a creator.VII. The peppered mothCon overlooks the actual argument on the peppered moth, here. Around the middle of the 19th century, however, a new form of the moth began to appear. The first report of a dark-colored peppered moth was made in 1848 [8] This moth is the evolved form of the first peppered moth. It could rest on the trunks, unseen. This is natural selection at it's finest (I will explain in future rounds upon request).VIII. BirdsCon argues that they are able to survive not whether or not they were from a creator. The birds do survive. [9]IIX. The earthwormThe setae are small spines which are projected from the body wall to act as anchors in the surface that the worm is moving along. [9 (Con's (13))] Yes, without the setae, the worm would be stuck, but the point is that they have them. This source proves this and Con's argument that dead things don't evolve can be thrown out here, as the worms are living, and there is no shortage of worms. Also, Aziz Aboobaker shows that a gene called ‘Smed-prep’ is essential for correctly regenerating a head and brain in planarian worms. [10(Con's(14))] No where does this say that the worm says I should grow a new head as Con argues against. Smed-prep does the work.IX Acquired characteristicI will argue this point if Con explains.Vote Pro![Sources in comments (character limit)]I will present a case next round.