Evolution: True? (Continuation)

1. My opponent claims I've accepted 2 qualifiers, I did not. I will quote myself now "if the evidence does not point toward it we don't accept it." Therefore parsimony takes a back seat to evidence, putting evidence on a different level. Whatever competing theory my opponent is proposing (I have not seen any) is moot because the evidence points to evolution everywhere. 2. My opponent seems not to understand the idea of duplication. Its more than a change, entire genomes can be duplicated creating entire chromosomes (1). The process is such that old information is doubled and then changed resulting in new information. 3. My opponent is doing an excellent debate tactic, however, a very dishonest scientific tactic. He is refusing to elaborate on his theory and instead is simple snatching away the evidence for evolution. In debate it is better to attack your opponent's stance while divulging as little as you can of your own position so it may not be attacked. In science, you must present that "other theory" and the evidence for it. 4. Again, a profound misunderstanding of natural selection is here. If the bird had thermo-regulators that inhibited its movement, it would have died. Which is why the birds with thermo-regulators that DIDN'T inhibit movement survived to the next generation. Those who survived moved on to the next generation to breed and etc. etc. As for the Kiwi, I think it should be known that flying is a TREMENDOUS cost on the body's resources. It requires stores of energy, muscle, blood flow and nutrients. If there is no need for flying, ex. lack of predators or even if there are more dangerous predators in the sky than in the ground, then flying would be gone. All that extra energy flying could be spent foraging for food, mating and raising children. 5. I see we are spending time debating sources. Here then is 7 incredible transitional fossils marked in National Geographic. (2) 6. I do suggest the voters to look at my source, and then we can realize why my opponent is not a paleontologist or an anatomist. Once again I see an argument from personal incredulity, my opponent doesn't believe it therefore it is not true. This is not a good scientific argument. 7. Lets set the record straight, I was not claiming my opponent was arrogant but rather that his argument was arrogant. Good explanations with mounds of data have arisen but my opponent refuses to accept them and because of that believes that YOU should not accept it. That is a flawed argument. Here is some more data on the Cambrian Slow Fuse (3). 8. Thats absolutely correct! And that is a VITAL part of evolution. Those who don't adapt to the environment, don't reproduce. Those who do adapt, reproduce and change the genetic pool frequencies thus representing the beneficial mutation more. 9. Lets compare a naturally muscular male to a naturally weaker male. The muscular male has the genetic make up of increased muscles inherited from previous generations who were able to reproduce as a result of their increased muscles. I'd say women DO appreciate a naturally muscular male who received their muscles from their genetics. Thus we have attraction as a result of increased evolutionary adaptation. Here is a source of attraction as a result of increased fitness (4) 10. The earth is not an exception to the rule because as we have established the earth is not an isolated system leaving it outside of the rule. Energy does not need to be organized information (needs proper definition) for it to apply to the law of thermodynamics. Again this is all pointless because this argument devolves into an origin question. As I said the earth has a self organizing method that starts with chlorophyll taking raw solar energy and converting it into life. Where did chlorophyll come from? This all falls under the umbrella of origin science and not evolutionary science (after life began). 11. Here is a source explaining mutation rates through scientific experimentation making it perfectly possible. I'd also like to contend that an article from the respected Journal of Genetics, a peer reviewed scientific publication, is a better source than my opponent's. 12. Again my opponent is relying on majority opinion to do the arguing for him. But to make my contention here is my source (5). 13. Not accepting it is not an argument elaborate on how it can't be put down to human intervention. 14. How life began is not what we are debating, whether or not life evolved is the issue. We should focus on the issues titled in the debate. 15. This is not the argument my opponent first brought up. He claimed that the earth had to be designed because of the parameters were so narrowly set and now he is saying that evolution does not function in the real world. What is the issue here? The Earth's conditions are meant for life or that evolution can not function? 16. By this logic we should reject; germ theory, elasticity theory, Einstein's theory, and numerous other theories within the scientific field because each and everyone of those theories are as well confirmed as evolutionary theory and each and every one of them has issues that have not yet been worked out. EVIDENCE is what destroys a theory and I'm convinced we have not yet seen any evidence strong enough to disprove evolution. 17. As for this argument I urge you to read what is years of TRUE scientific research and not biblical propaganda as is littered all over my opponent's source. (7) 18. An explanation for how something occurs is a mechanism (6 Definition 2). Again macro evolution is micro evolution + time. There is no such thing Macro evolutionary mutations, just millions of micro evolutionary changes over long periods of time. I urge everyone to read each of our sources carefully and consider the hard work done by scientist. I don't need to ask voters to vote PRO because when they read the data, they will do it anyway. 1 - ^ Kellis M, Birren BW, Lander ES (April 2004). "Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae". Nature 428 (6983): 617–24. doi:10.1038/nature02424. PMID 15004568. 2 - http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 3 - http://www.pnas.org... 4 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 5 - http://www.hcdi.net... 6 - mechanism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com... 7 - http://www.livescience.com...