The scientific evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming.

Further Refutations In response to the geological column, the detailed studies of evolutionary forms and transitions and the tedious work of geologists across the globe, Con replied God did it. 'Well, it's because God created the so-called "simpler" organisms first.' That is it, that is the argument against the geological column and its accordance with evolutionary theory, that is not a convincing rebuttal and its ad-hoc statements display the shaky ground his objections lie on. (1) As I have shown time and time again, The Lenski experiment displays random genetic mutations which allow for a new biological function which previously could not be achieved. Instead of actually refuting my sources Con takes a blanket statement and simply denies that it has happened. His response to the increase in mass of the E. Coli as progressive adaptability in environments due to genetic mutations it's a very asinine remark. ' ! He also say that E.coli got bigger, so what? ' . These remarks show a serious lack of professional courtesy in discussing a reputable biology paper, he also ignored my detailed explanation of the combined and multiple mutations. He also ignored two papers I posted regarding completely separate beneficial mutations in populations (Lang et al. 2000) and (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Con seems to object to the idea mutation even occur, but admits adaptability can occur in populations. He offers literally no evidence for why adaptability even occurs if not by mutations even stating the giraffe neck is the result of 'microevolution' meaning variation within a kind. Does Con really believe a recessive gene can account for 15 feet of looping nerve? That is the only option he can try and defend. Con has now put himself into a position where he can either admit mutations occur and therefore his arguments against mutation occurring are invalid, as I have clearly shown or he can keep denying them and try and defend a completely unscientific claim. Con has misunderstood the experiment in a separate way. I stated variation and speciation in the wild is far more probable due to different variables, I did not say that the E. Coli mutation specific to citrate digestion is more probable in the wild, nowhere did I say that, Con has simply made up that statement about what I wrote. Also his idea of nature and natural selection seems to imply a want or need or driving force towards set goals, this is a very common mistake. Con says 'All I said was that was conjecture' then admits I gave him two detailed studies on bacteria evolution in the wild, he then admits he didn't read them and then objects to them. If you did not read either one of the papers or even the abstracts then you have no warrant to criticise them. I gave scientific peer reviewed papers, Con didn't feel he needed to read them even though he has 74 hours to make his rebuttals. Con's main arguments appear to fail into ad- hoc hypothesis and he has used at least four analogies in order to refute my evidence. Analogies work for explaining ideas, not as evidence against scientific papers. The primer mutations are primers because they increase probabilities for other mutations by collective and progressive adaptability. Con somehow is now arguing the mutations are the result of intelligent design, when just before he was rejecting the mutations results in the first place. These arguments are clearly extremely muddled. Con then proceeds to jump into the origins of life, and simply says evolutionists know the simplest organisms are too complex, he is simply throwing out every argument he can, with no elaboration in order to preoccupy my time, with having to refute them. This is perhaps con's weakest refutation to my point since 'God did it' regarding fossils and the geological column. Con makes a comparison to humans and a intelligent being capable of creating a universe and life. He believes these two beings should be considered equally. Meaning a being capable of creating a universe shouldn't be expected to create a perfectly functioning animal. Con now resorts to saying how 'the giraffe is not complaining'. He also quotes biblical scripture in a discussion on scientific discoveries. Apart from failing to refute my claims Con now admits the what he calls God has created a universe with flaws. Hardly worthy of the title intelligent designer or God. What we get as a refutation is no scientific evidence and admitting that his intelligent designer is in fact a poor intelligent designer with flaws. He then states that variables in the universe have lead to these flaws, considering God created the universe also, we have an even worse off situation. God created a universe and animals that don't even work in a perfectly functioning way. So God or this intelligent designer, has provided evidence for poor design. These refutations are clearly ad-hoc and stretch the imagination so far as to be simply absurd and in a discussion regarding science, they are clearly not even close to my sources. Lastly Con makes a final attempt to refute evolution by mixing up accumulative probabilities and how it is related to evolutionary theory. Anyone who has a basic understanding of evolutionary theory knows of the basic idea of 'small accumulative steps towards a higher productivity rate in environments. If you fail to understand that basic principle arguments like a 'fax machine turning into a phone' or steps in evolution being impossible seem to be quite convincing. We know though that these arguments stem from a serious lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, this is also reinforced by believing that micro evolution is fundamentally different from macro evolution. When in fact natural selection is fully supported by evidence. Human evolution As I said I would talk about human evolution I will mentioned it now. As I cannot talk in detail about every single human fossil from now throughout our millions of years journey towards what we are now known as which is Homo sapiens. Here is a quick link just to give everyone an idea of the literally diversity and amount of fossils now discovered since Darwin's time. http://www.talkorigins.org... Now the evidence that leads geologists to believe in these are human fossils are things like, the precise location and timescale of these fossils, with clear paths of migration and the progressive increase in brain capacity of each fossil, similar to the increase in size of our E. Coli experiment, we see an increase in Cranial capacity. This increase is signs of the driving force of evolution which is survival in the environments which the preservation of organisms which have beneficial mutations. Other aspects are the differences between humans and our closest relatives and we see this in all the fossils spanning back to the common ancestor of us and our closet relatives. These differences include small canines in humans and the location of the spinal cord where it enters the braincase. We have extremely convincing evidence of items like be-pedialism, use of tools and precision grip which have led to the ability to create tools and advance. With recent discoveries in fields like comparative anatomy, we see strong links to homogony and in light of this, the theory of evolution becomes much stronger, not merely because we see obvious signs of descent with modification, the underlying theory of evolution, but because this evidence only works in an evolutionary frame work. It is not explained by Con's belief in the creation hypothesis. Ad- hoc solutions to these obvious signs are presented but anyone with a respect for Biology will reject unfounded views in light of peer reviewed papers. Con's alternative hypothesis does not contain any of the important evidence that evolution has. Closing The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, with Lenski's experiment being merely just one of literally thousands of experiments supporting the theory of evolution. With combined resources in fields like comparative anatomy, genetics embryology , geology and every field of biology, we have a theory which is constantly accumulating evidence, from Lenski's experiment to whale evolution and genetic lineages and the fossil record. Con failed to address many of my points and supporting data, but offered no substantial refutation of Lenski's experiment, with arguments that seemed to display a misunderstanding of the mutations observed. His proposed hypothesis clearly lacks any convincing data or observations and relied mainly on analogies and ad- hoc reasoning. His counters to my objections were extremely poor and in general his hypothesis does not stand up against the powerful evidence for the theory of evolution. In closing I would say that the presented evidence for evolution stands un refuted and with the evidence from all the different fields of Biology, the evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming.