The theory of evolution is well established

Given the space constraints of my rebuttal, I intend to minimize my objections to Pro's rebuttal. This is not because I can't elaborate, but because I have not yet met my BoP and need to produce additional arguments. Pro continues to affirm universal genetic code as evidence for evolution. He pointed out that the 6 letter DNA was engineered. However, the fact that we can engineer such changes in a lab does not prevent them from occurring in Nature. P1) 6 letter DNA organism can be engineered in a lab using naturally occurring processes P2) It is possible for 6 letter DNA to occur in by natural processes C) Given enough time, 6 letter DNA organism will occur by natural processes If Pro would like to assert that this logical construction is invalid, I recommend Pro correct the following logic as well: P1) Mutations are observed in a lab by natural processes P2) It is possible that mutations small mutations can create large mutations over time C) Given enough time, small mutations will accumulate into large mutations causing speciation The reason the evolutionists in both my sources question why there are only 6 letters in DNA is simple. They understand my first logical construction. There is no known cause for 6 letter DNA not arising. Pro reasserts that using the same genetic code in multiple organisms points to common descent. But we know by observing things built by humans that two types of manufactured items use the same basic components. Two competing processors will use the same transistors. It is a logical conclusion that if two types of species were going to be constructed by humans, we too would use the same basic building blocks. It is no stretch to say that if there was a designer of organisms, than the designer would also use the same building blocks across multiple similar objects. If naturalists are wrong, then the universality of the genetic code cannot be used as evidence for evolution, because we know that things designed by humans follow the same pattern of reuse. Christian Schwabe is an extremist. He doesn't believe in Darwinism. He is still one of the first to use DNA sequencing to compare various species. The fact that his discoveries came before the human genome was sequenced is irrelevant to their truthfulness. Pro has failed to show that Schwabe was wrong about the inconsistencies (quirks) between the expected mutation model and the observed reality. Furthermore, I presented multiple sources which agree to the problem and attempt to address it. I want to know what fallacy Pro claims I made by quoting Schwabe. It is strange that Pro claims I quoted Schwabe "extensively". I only provided a single, small quote. Pro claims that natural selection works on random mutation to create distinct species by eliminating transitions between two different taxa. Natural selection is seen to occur in nature and isn't disputed. Natural selection alone only shows removal of genes from the available gene pool. It cannot account for the creation of new genetic information which is believed to occur by random mutation. To revisit the bat and dolphin argument I made previously, I want to reassert that this defies the idea of random mutation. Bats and dolphins are believed to have evolved nearly identical genes for sonar through a very complex set of mutations [1]. In almost every case where we observe convergent evolution we see a difference in the genes. But where we see a difference in the genes, we also see a difference in the capability. Although evolutionists claim that similar DNA causes similar functionality, these two are merely correlated. The opposite expectation is also true. Two species with similar functionality will have similar DNA. Correlation does not imply causation, thus the evolutionist blunders by asserting this conclusion from the premise. The idea that very complex traits evolve multiple times at random is also staggering. For example, the eye is believed to have evolved somewhere between 50 and 100 time, all within a few million years [2]. It is believed to have been improved upon slightly since then, but it is strange that such a complex organ would arise multiple times in a short time frame and then never show up new in any species again ever! This does not appear to be random chance. Were it random, you would expect to see the various evolutions each take place at different times, because the mutation is believed to be random. It is true that natural selection would favor the same mutations, but it neither explains the ability to evolve the eye or the short time scale in which that evolution took place. Pro does not seem to understand my argument for location of living animals. I will point out that polar bears live on the same continent as Texas, but there are no naturally occurring polar bears in Texas for obvious reasons. Pro claims, "[Con] not provide an adequate alternative explanation for the fact that entire groups of species, such as marsupials, are all found in Australia and nowhere else." However, a cursory examination of evidence proves that marsupials didn't originate in Australia after the continental breakup [3] [4]. I'll note that the talkorigins article from 1994 claimed marsupials originated in North America 80 million years ago. The oldest marsupial fossil known to man was found in 2009 in France dating 99 million years ago. I also note that the discovery of this old fossil has caused evolutionists to change their beliefs on where mammals first traveled [3]. Pro's evidence that marsupials are only found on one continent is clearly false according to evolutionists. This should not be a point of contention. The King Cobra is found in India and Southeast Asia [5]. Even though it is found on the same land mass as a very large part of the world, it has not spread out. The isolation of the King Cobra to one section of the land mass is not evidence that it evolved in isolation and wasn't able to spread out to other areas. In fact it could spread out, but it chooses not to. Besides, the conclusion doesn't follow the premises. P1) A family of species is only found on one isolated land mass P2) A species will spread out over its natural habitat C) The species found on an isolated land mas must have evolved only there, because it was unable to spread out before the continents split apart. I have already demonstrated that premise 2 is false using the King Cobra, although I could provide other examples if needed. If it is not evidence that they evolved specifically in one place, it is not evidence that they evolved at all. I do not believe the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that, if falsified, would discredit the theory. The theory can easily adapt to any new information. For example, if a species that was believed to have evolved only recently was found fossilized in the Cambrian layer, there would be a big upheaval in the theory of evolution where time scales would need to be modified. The theory would still hold that the evolution took place sooner than expected. As Pro points out, the lack of missing links in the fossil record cannot be used as evidence that the evolution did not take place. As I have proven, the specific locality of fossils can neither prove nor disprove evolution. The known exceptions to the universality of the genetic code, whether natural or engineered, cannot be used as evidence against evolution. As I previously showed, evolutionists used to believe that mammals and birds were related. Even now, if a bird-mammal was found, then convergent evolution could be claimed without the evidence of any missing links. Evolution used to use noncoding DNA (aka junk DNA) as evidence for evolution, but they almost dropped that argument when it was discovered that noncoding DNA actually had a use [6]. Noncoding DNA can still be functional. Evolutionists have made many claims about vestigial organs that were inherited but don't serve a purpose in the new species. However, the number of vestigial organ claims continues to decrease with time. According to National Geographic, a use for the spleen was discovered in 1977 [7]. Scientists are starting to question if humans have any vestigial organs at all [8]! The fact that we do not know the use for an organ does not mean it does not have one. As National Geographic quoted, History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said. People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay. The lack of vestigial organs has not had an impact on the theory of evolution. It was adapted to fit observations. There are still claims to vestigial organs, but none of those claims logically hold. P1) We don't know of a use for that organ P2) It's evolutionary ancestor had that organ C) It's a vestigial organ I have yet to see one logical conclusion that the theory of evolution makes that can be tested and proven false to the discredit of the theory. There has been no evidence given that may be used as a premise that logically concludes evolution took place. Pro asserts that evolution is a well established fact. I believe that well established should involve testable premises that logically conclude evolution. Back to you Pro. Good luck. 1) http://www.newscientist.com... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) http://www.sciencedaily.com... 4) http://www.talkorigins.org... 5) http://en.wikipedia.org... 6) http://healthland.time.com... 7) http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 8) http://www.inplainsite.org...