Evolution is false

Thank you for your swift opening arguments. 1. Glue I have not been able to find any other reference to the book that you cited. Also, can you please tell me which molecule holds glue together? I have not been able to find the name of the molecule. In the comment section, you alluded to 12Al, which is a non-existent isotope of Aluminum. 2. Law of Large Numbers The Law of Large Numbers is a theorem that describes the results of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.[1] I am at a total loss to see how this contradicts common descent. Can you please expand on this in the next round? My opponent simply states “evolution directly contradicts this” without explaining why or giving any evidence. 3. The Flagellum My opponent argues from irreducible complexity which is the argument that , in the words of Michael Behe:“A single system of several well-matched interacting parts contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts cause the system to effectively cease functioning.”[2] So, how did the flagellum evolve? “Ian Musgrave suggested in interesting evolutionary pathway for the bacteria flagellum: First he casually points out that the major components of the flagellum, the filament, the hook, the rod and the motor are hollow. He then noted that there are major structural similarities between the major components of the bacterial flagellum and a type of bacterial protein secretion system called the type III secretory systems. The type III secretory system has a rivet identical to the rod of the flagellum. The switching/torque generation system also has homologs in type III secretary systems. Some type III secretory system even have tubular structures attached to the rod which resembles the filament of the flagellar system! In type III secretary system proteins are exported through the hollow motor ring and rod! Homology studies have also shown the proteins of the type III secretary system and the flagella are related, in fact in some bacteria these proteins are identical to each other!” “Given these clues, he then suggested how the flagellum could have evolved. First the SMC ("Motor") rod pore is evolved forming the simplest secretory system. Then the proto-flagellum arose as part of the protein secretion structure. Finally an ion pump which initially was used for something else (such as keeping ionic cell balance) was incorporated into this structure which gives it perhaps some weak motility. This then is a case where a structure originally meant for some other purpose (protein secretion) evolved to a point where it could be used for another entirely different purpose (motility).”[3] 4. Sexual Reproduction This is not just a matter of being sexual or asexual because there are several intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is more than possible.[4] The earliest steps involved single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information, not necessarily distinct sexes. Male and females would most definitely not have evolved independently. Sex, by definition, involves both genders. 5. Thermodynamics I will copy and paste my rebuttal from a previous debate that I have done[5]. This is such a common argument against evolution and yet it is flawed in so many ways: First, it misunderstands what the Law of Thermodynamics is; secondly, it misrepresents what evolution is. First, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The concept of entropy is defined as heat (in calories or Btu’s) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above “absolute zero”, the coldest temperature that can exist. Consequently, heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease. Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. I am at a complete loss to understand how this violates the Law of Thermodynamics. Firstly, the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight has low entropy and shines on the Earth and heat has higher entropy radiates off. This can, and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. Secondly, this confuses the difference between entropy and disorder. They are not one in the same. Although at times the two correspond, at times order increases as entropy increases. Finally, in a closed system, pockets of left over entropy form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. This happens on earth all the time. Conclusion: My opponent’s criticism via the Law of Thermodynamics fails to understand what Thermodynamics is and misrepresents the Theory. 5. Chromosomes I’m at a total loss as to how you came to the conclusion that because there was a fusion, we have to go back infinitely, until my opponent clarifies, I’ll let Dr. Ken Miller explain in the video to the right. http://www.youtube.com... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Behe, M. “Darwin’s Black Box” [3] http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net... [4] Kondrashov, Alexey S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435. [5] http://debate.org...