The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

Round 3 then. Con asks what the error he made that I opened up my R2 with was. I was referring to the plural inherent in "Medic among others" and "Anti-Evolutionists", meaning that it applies not only to Con, but to other people who oppose evolutionary theory for one reason or another. Lenski Con starts out by using a source that completely contradicts his overall argument, as the source itself says "the present inventory of links includes thousands of prehistoric hominid species, from frontal bones down to footprints. Her conviction that whatever is there lacks antiquity is incorrect: australopithecines lived long before Lewis Abbott's Pliocene Man" - in other words agreeing that common descent is real. And then later it says "The total Putdown history... legitimizes the study of evolution as a science [and] also suggests that fraud is not epidemic in science" - again contrary to Con's later implications that that is exactly what science entails. It also mentions that while evolution is not perfect, it's still a hell of a lot better than other theories. Con criticises the appearance of Haeckel's embryos in biology textbooks, however there are some justified reasons for this, namely that similarities in structure do prove common descent as well as the fact that vertebrate embryos do possess gill slits, not to mention that there's nothing wrong with using the drawings to prove a historical point (9) and contrast them with what we understand about embryos while discussing what Haeckel got wrong (10). Sure, in the few cases where those biology textbooks are discussing Haeckel's findings as fact, then it's wrong and should be removed, but when it comes to other stuff about embryos that are actually true in relation to the Haeckel controversy (the embryonic post-anal tail among others) then that stuff absolutely belongs in a science class. Con complains about these frauds, but again I must strongly point out that these frauds were discovered by ACTUAL scientists. I do not condone the frauds in any way and I find them disgusting, but I know those on my side of the fence corrected those frauds, which is more than can be said for those on Con's side. Since Con more or less agrees with me about Lenski, I'll only dispute his disagreement about common descent, as the population of the bacteria that managed to "eat" citrate was very clearly descended from the original E.coli strain that Lenski used to start off his experiment in the first place. Con then claims that Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other, but this is clearly not the case (11), and Con tries to shift the burden of proof with regards to the light source. Sorry, but Burden Of Proof does not work that way. Because Con was the one who asserted that an alternative light source existed him, it's on HIM to demonstrate that it was that way, otherwise his claims are without merit. Con also claims that there's no evidence of a single common ancestor, but this is clearly not the case, as all organisms with life have DNA and RNA encoded into their functions and structures, as well as the fact that much of life also shares sequences of amino acids. Beyond that, there's also the fact that any good scientific theory must make valid predictions that will come true. And common descent has (12), as it has, among other things, predicted that "islands that have similar environments, but are in different parts of the world, will not be populated with the same species" as well as also predicting that "the fossil record shows transitions (links) between groups, which are evidence that these groups have a shared history" as well as also predicting that animals would have certain characteristics in common. And all of these have turned out to be true. Con protests his viewpoint is not based on the Bible and asserts that it's purely from "what we see every day" that the Bible gets supported about the whole "kinds" thing. And yet Con cannot provide a coherent definition of "kinds", and Baraminology is sorely undermined by the fact that the vast majority of life on this planet is incapable of hybridizing themselves, among other problems (13). Bias Con simply repeats himself about science only testing for the natural occurrences, and then attempts to deride my own position as "supernatural". An odd thing to claim, considering that enough evidence of CD has clearly been discovered to make it the dominant scientific position. I've already acknowledged that science has limitations, but at the same time Con completely fails to address the long history of religious beliefs, including creationist dogma, getting refuted constantly by science, as demonstrated in my (4) from the last round. I've already explained clearly too how CD can be falsified, but Con also ignores this. With regards to origins, Con's argument is irrelevant as evolution and CD actually has to do with how life progressed AFTER said origin, and while the search for the Universal Common Ancestor IS happening, it's not the central focus of evolutionary theory or CD. I agree that a scientific theory may become scientifically invalid later on. However, until that actually happens, it is completely pointless for Con to throw around empty "What If?" claims unless he actually has definitive evidence that demonstrates the theory is actually false. His accusations against science are completely baseless, as if the anti-evolution dissenters did have any truly valid points to overturn the theory, then as per my Q3 there is no motive for biologists to discount opposing viewpoints if there's a chance that they'll actually overturn the existing theory. Likewise, Con can claim there are "critical" gaps all he wants, but all it amounts to is the God of the Gaps fallacy (14). He also dismisses my Expelled Exposed link because it only dealt with how evolution works. But again, Con hasn't provided anything remotely convincing against evolution, and the fact of the matter is that it's still very much the case that previous conceptions in science were overturned. Still, if Con would like more examples of existing theories that replaced old ones in the scientific consensus, I'd be happy to oblige (15). Con also doesn't address the nature of how science eliminates bias that I pointed out in R2, so that's another concession. Why Hasn't Evolution Been Exposed Yet? Con completely contradicts his earlier claim that he's not a "conspiracy theorist" when he implies that the pro-evolutionary crowd are covering up the exposure of evolution being wrong, again failing to satisfy my Q3 about why on earth they'd go to all that trouble, and being erroneous with regards to my Q4 as I've already pointed out that scientists try to disprove evolutionary theory all the time and any credible attempts to disprove it are absolutely welcomed, hence the fact that since there's no motivation by evolutionists to engage in a cover up, then again there's no reason why, if the solid argument against evolutionary theory and especially CD exists, why we don't know all about it all over the mainstream news and in the biggest selling books by now. Con has completely ignored my point how scientific consensus works, and while he is absolutely right that "it only takes one to be right", but until that "one" comes up with the definitive goods to prove evolution and CD wrong, then their claims are completely without merit. Con's final remark is nothing but an ad hominem as I have examined both sides and, judging from how Con seems willing to dismiss evidence collected by highly credentialed biologists with PhD's and articles in real credible scientific journals, one has to cast doubt about Con's actual knowledge of science. Con may now take the floor.