Evolution isn't supported with scientific evidence (4)

Mutations: In regards to your first paragraph, such a statement is contradictory in itself. My saying that "Mutations are not inherently "beneficial" nor "hurtful"" was a statement in my own defense which I further explained. Mutations are random, and in affecting the genome still may add harmful/neutral/and or beneficial information. If "damaging" the genome means affecting it, then yes its damaged all the time. However neutral mutations most often change genetic code while still coding for the same trait (Ex. UGU & UGC both = Cytosine). In adding beneficial information, you requested examples which I provided (and will defend) later. The Machine analogy is something I still find faulty- To further this particular rebuttal, yes, every creature has a working code, which may be comparable to a machine to some standard. However machine code doesn't change, which is still upheld in biology and in genetic information. Reproduction via machine does very much address this problem. Furthermore, to say we are like machine in that our genes and traits work together like a machine is also flawed, as genes are the code itself (which changes) and traits are the resulting product of a gene, and the process is irreversible. Just because something is aimless as well does not mean it is fruitless. In fact on the analogy of machines, many aimless mistakes have been turned into inventions and benefitted society such as Penicillin, Pace Makers, and Plastic. http://www.inc.com... The fact that genes can affect multiple traits is something I both recognize and accept. However, not all genes are pleiotropic, and beyond that genes do not affect other genes (they are segments on DNA, excluding frame shift which is a mutation). Radiation, X-ray, otherwise induced chemicals observed in these experiments are unstable themselves, and are accepted generally as poisonous in excessive dosages, by which would be required for genomic mutations. These mutations are unstable mostly by method, and radiation-induced mutations often exhibit similar patterns to cancerous cells, which easily explains the multitude of deformations and unhealthy flies in general. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Regarding skin mutations, these can be observed even in today's modern culture. Skin genes in general are notably affected mostly by the mother's gene for skin, and also mutations. The mutation itself is in relation to melanin, and genetic mutations will control how much is used in creation of the skin. In our more primitive societies, our natural defenses such as skin played a huge role in our survival, as I had explained before how vitamin intake and resistance was important. Artic and costal diets affected this as well in relation to dark skin and vitamin intake. The mutations occur on the X chromosome as well as chromosome 15, hence why it is slightly more maternal. http://humanorigins.si.edu... Regarding AI-Milano, the dimers (protein pairs) do not restrict their functionality. The synthesized proteins which the original AI is coded for still form in the AI-Milano, and the AI-Milano dimers readily form HDL particles just as well the AI monomers. http://www.talkorigins.org... CCR5 isn't damaged, it is deleted. This is still a result of change in the genome therefore being a "new" form of the genome. Still proving beneficial, the new genetic form of the genome is still beneficial overall within the genome. Besides, in other terms the receptor was mostly a flaw within "intelligent design". I was requested to provide a beneficial mutation, and seeing as largely phenotypic mutation can't be observed without a decent sum of time, I felt the example was solid enough to fit with your request, by which this "new" example was brought up in relation to. The evolution of the giraffe neck included transitional fossils, yes, but the center point of the example was that the neck became longer, which in relation to their feeding habits was a beneficial mutation. Evolution: In relation to differentiation, the creationist view of similarity exhibits redundancy. Such as that between animal species only differentiated by mere color and perhaps body size (squirrels make a perfect example, dogs and cats too, among others). In relation to the octopus and human eye, sure, at some point along the line it is vaguely possibly that we had a common ancestor. However on the alternative of that, it is entirely possible that traits in some species evolved separately. This remains entirely within the realm of evolution as far as being explainable. Interbreeding is interesting to go by, especially with Genesis fixation. An animal that can breed with another animal is the same kind of animal. Sure. How come there is an exception to the rule that if they can't breed, then they aren't dissimilar? if they are the same kind of animal, and can't breed, then would than imply they are not in fact the same kind of animal? I bring to question how a creationist actually determines what is same animal and not- Let lone, you bring up mutation and diversification, in which both are directly related to that which you stand against: Evolution! Under evolution, I never stated that archaeopteryx couldn't fly. In fact, some reptiles of the dinosaur times flew (who doesn't love pterodactyls~!). So proving that archaeopteryx could fly doesn't weaken my case at all, in fact it could make it point to being an even more reasonable transitional fossil. In regards to its tail, archaeopteryx's tail was long AND bony. The majority of long bird tails (including your widowbird) have long tails in relation to their feathers (beautiful bird by the way). To rock deformities, I point to (if you actually looked at my source) monocline, anticline, and syncline folds. These happen rather easily in relation to fault movements and stress by geological movements. These movements create the rather extremely uneven rock layers we have, even at a present surface level. The sizes of these deformities can range from our pleasant small observable scale and large underground deformities. So by deformity some lower layers at a bend are actually from more recent times. Anyways, I took the liberty of checking up further on your crow sized fossil, and found the information goes against you even more incriminatingly- So say your dating is correct and deformations are irrelevant. Crow "sized" does not imply it as a bird. In fact it more resembled a tiny (still crow "sized") dinosaur! With powerful hind legs and a tail. I have to thank you for enlightening me on an even earlier transitional fossil to birds, the find is both furthering for evolution and fails to deter me. http://articles.chicagotribune.com... http://articles.latimes.com... In relation to phosphatherium, I suppose I can under stand how bringing up more fossils might count as new evidence, and to that notion I will respect the concede to some degree... However, the point of mentioning the fossils succeeding phosphatherium was to mainly incite transitional features from it, particularly of its few teeth that it had shown which is something you pointed out. However, yes, it is at my fault for not pointing out this particular stance, and I will not defend it further. (In addition, I was low on space to use, so such details were omitted) In relation to miacis, saying something existed and has gone extinct isn't a definitive attack in relation to similar previous attacks, so I felt the need to drop the matter personally. Once again though, in respect for the Pro's view of this I will also not defend this one. (This was also a matter in lack of space, by which I had preferred the previous two examples. In relation to the coccyx, I would first like to point out that stem cells control embryotic development- not nerve messages and their latter reasoning. Also in addition to refuting that we grow tails as embryos is also asserted incorrectly, as these tails are lost still in that they become absorbed and lost still. Also, when we don't lose this tail (its usually flesh at this point by mutation, but on other occasions has up to five "tail-bones"), guess what- its a tail! and coccyx on other animals? Those if long enough, are also tails! Just as well, its "functionality" remains less than accurate. This small little (still an often fused, and at much led than 40, it fuses in teens and early adult ages) nub of skeleton hanging off the sacrum is not nearly as functional as the sacrum itself, and the "anchor" part of the argument is still useless in regards to the fusing. Just as well, looking at diagrams these "attachments" are already often attached in other places, namely the sacrum itself. http://www.spineuniverse.com... http://www.spine-health.com... To conclude this debate, I want to firstly thank my partner for a good debate, however in light of their efforts I rebutted the majority of their claims, only dropping a small few for respect and preference reasons. Perhaps in time, evolution and human documentation will have played out long enough for evolution to be observed further. Creationism and Common Design, simply saying that creatures were spontaneously created may have appeased the scientific community at some point: But that was the 18th century and prior. Evolution has been studied repeatedly since, and it has improved upon itself more than evidence against it has. Science in itself is an evolving thing, we learn more as we move on, and being hard stuck on an idea that was human interpreted to begin with from ages past is not how one should go about moving forward. May the best debater win, and voters find their own answers for themselves.