E v. C

Let me clarify my stance regarding the dichotomy and BoP. By arguing against one, I provide support for the other. However, the support is in no way firm unless I present arguments making it so. In this debate, I will address Pro’s arguments by small quotations instead of a long explanation of what I am rebutting. “not use videos”Willingly.“Genome degradation is synonymous with genome reduction.” This does no credit to my argument. I have already cited Cornell professor and geneticist Sanford, who uses the term genetic degradation interchangeably with genetic entropy. Remember that his book was in proof-reading stage before Nilsson et. al. published their findings. If one were to argue that Nilsson is older, it would only be older than the publishing date by ~two months. Secondly, it is important to note that the term “Genetic degradation” occurs nowhere in Nilsson et. al. Thus, Pro is arguing against a straw man. I will be using the term “genetic degradation” for the remainder of this debate, since it is historically used to refer to informational degradation rather than size reduction. The WP article on Muller’s ratchet has correctly identified “genome reduction” as “genetic shrinkage.”“Con's second source is not reliable”This is an assertion which relies on the “truth value” that creationist sources are unreliable. This is illogical for several reasons. (1): It does no credit to the fact that this is actually a creation-evolution debate, and I am allowed to use such sources. (2): Pro has only one peer-reviewed source, whereas I had multiple such sources. His source has no scientific input, whereas my source has reliable information from Prof. Sanford. This type of argument to authority is not fallacious, as per [1].“if god made every species exactly as we see them today”This is an incorrect caricature of the YEC position. The YEC position is much different, and I even elaborated on it in the first round. I will not do so here.“Genetic noise does not prevent "natural selection",”Perhaps I should have added the word “effective” before natural selection, but that would do no difference to the way the argument was treated. All of these statements are supported in either my round one’s (4) or (5). In fact, this idea of the “survival of the luckiest” has strong support even in the evolutionary community [2]. “Mendel was showing that selection happened in the 1800s for traits”Pro does not understand my arguments here. I am not arguing that traits, as in phenotypes, cannot be selected against/for. I am arguing that the mutations in single nucleotide bases cannot usually be selected. The concept is equivalent to that of a car sitting in the open air to rot, as my R1 source (2) showed, with support from Prof. Sanford. Pro is arguing against a totally different concept which I do not in the slightest dispute. “has not been established through any studies as being consistent fact, and ignores back mutation”Pro has in this section repeated uncritically the Wikipedia article. It is unfortunate that the exact portions of his citation has a primary source in Wikipedia. I could easily use my wikipedia editor account to say that “Muller’s ratchet has been in recent years been debunked as pseudoscience.” I wonder if Pro would have copied that as well. The whole concept of Pro is that Muller’s ratchet only works in the case of asexual creatures. This is not so. In contrast, it works just as well for sexually reproducing creatures as asexual creatures. “posting it as though it's a fault with evolution”It is not that it is a prediction I do not like. In fact, even though I support the Creation model, it posits that humans would go extinct. It is not due to distaste or dislike, but in fact due to the fact that it opposes evolutionary changes, which cannot work with degradation of the genome. “that would be perfectly in line with the theory of evolution and genetics as we understand it”The whole idea of linkage blocks is that there is far too many degradational mutations within each mutation block. Selecting against one such linkage blocks merely means that it is exchanged for another one just as degraded. Arguing that it can be beneficial makes no sense. This point makes no sense.“generally predicts that, ...more harmful mutations than beneficial ones.” “unsupported assertion”The fifth reference of Pro, to an article on Mendel, does not at all contain the quote Pro attributes to it. This is the first error. It is, indeed accepted, that degradational mutations outweigh beneficial mutations, but that does not mean that it is a prediction of evolution. Saying that it is is worse than even evolutionary stasis. For evolution to work, it is a requirement, and therefore a prediction, that beneficial mutations in terms of genetic information must outweigh degradational mutations. Despite Pro accusing this argument of being unsupported assertion, he himself has no source either to back up his assertion or his statements. The argument has not been refuted or even addressed.“Con has misconstrued the evidence he has presented”I believe we are on different genetic pages. Pun intended.“deleterioius mutations does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary hypothesis”See my previous round, where I made mush of this. Source (4) has an even better explanation, but I believe mine is sufficient.“one would expect to find NO advantageous mutations”This argument is a caricature of the YEC position as well. In fact, it is the prediction that Pro has unsupportedly claimed that evolution makes that Creation makes. (See R1 source 2, which Pro wrote off.)“the explanation we have is satisfactory.”Pro has not even attempted to address the argument that evolutionary stasis is an oxymoronic term. “Evolution” in its simplest term, means “change over time” and stasis means “no change.” Satisfaction with an explanation does not prove its soundness. Pro has unfortunately broken his own rule of: “no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence.”“Con has yet to provide an explanation for why different species are "degrading" at different rates”The whole purpose of the arguments is not in relation to the rates at which they degrade, but that they degrade, period. As I have shown, Pro is using a wikipedia definition of degrade, which is actually supposed to be “shrinkage.” I believe I have addressed everything of importance. I have established strongly through comparative evidence that the Creation model is a better fit to the evidence than the evolutionary interpretation. Pro has relied on a non-peer-reviewed definition of the term “genetic degradation” to argue against my R1 argument, and breaks his own rules, unfortunately.Pro has provided no support for his argument that the evidence supports evolution. At most, he has argued against my arguments without establishing his own case. He has no arguments of his own. By assuming that evolution is true until proven false, he has broken the rule cited above which I took great pains to sidestep. I would like for Pro not to use Wikipedia as a source when it is itself unsourced. I would also request that my position (YEC) not be caricatured. Thank you for your reply. I hope for a better next round. 1. http://www.nizkor.org...2. http://www.readcube.com...