The "deteriorating process" can explain all inferred instances of the "compounding process."

Clearing up the Burden of Proof The Burden of Proof is actually shared. I must prove the postulate in at least one instance. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove in all instances therefore Con's role is to show a case it doesn't work in at the very least one case. This is actually how any scientific theory works. Proof 1 Still Stands The article showed how lactose tolerance came to be in multiple ways which is unexplainable for the compounding process. However there are multiple ways to deteriorate to reach the same results such as; losing the function to shut off lactose digestion or losing the function of proper RNA transcription. For the compounding process, you must simply gain it. The fact that it didn't result in speciation is rather irrelevant as it is inferred that multiple successive cases of the deteriorating process would result in speciation. This is seen in proof 2. Proof 2 Still Stands My opponent states: "While it is true that selective pressures and random genetic drift in this instance can lead to speciation . . ." In this statement my opponent admits the deteriorating process can lead to speciation. Thus my postulate has been supported as true in at least one case and now must be refuted in at least one case. After that quote my opponent says that does not mean it will cause all cases of speciation. How am I supposed to prove anything scientifically that it works in all cases? Pull out every case of speciation in the book and explain it? In a five round debate? That is impossible and since it is supported as true in at least one case it then becomes the Con's job to disprove it in at least one case. Also the loss of genetic diversity is the loss of genetic information which is demonstrably proven as you admitted. I also don't see the importance of showing speciation in all instances of speciation. These different kinds of speciation are only man made classifications and pose no real threat. You must show why it can't. Jingwei Gene The problem with the Jingwei Gene is I see no reference saying that it was observed. There is no straw man. My refutation was based on the assumption that it wasn't. If Con cannot show this assumption to be false in round four then it will be successfully refuted as I cannot respond to it again if posted in round five, which is also not allowable by rules anyway. If it wasn't observed I don't have to count for its existence at all. I am not saying all living organisms deteriorated from the same common ancestor but different groups deteriorated from a common ancestor. This gene could have been carried down from the original. I have shown ample plausible deniability of my opponents claim unless he can show the assumption to be false. RNASE 1 is inferred It is important to note, as I have mentioned earlier, that the mutation must be observed not inferred. It is important to make this distinction because I am not claiming that all genes had a deteriorating origin, as mentioned earlier in this post. From reading the article [1] it is clear that it was not observed but inferred, thus negated. Round Four Opponent Proofs I guess I thought it was a given from round one but my opponent must show an observable instance of his thesis or at least an observable instance to disprove my postulate. By the way, to disprove my postulate does not necessarily have to be proving a negative. You must show the compounding process exists from observable evidence. I am not going to be a stickler and require you to show speciation in this instance, as we both assume if our processes continued then they would result in speciation. Science- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation or experimentation [3] As seen from the definition of science, and excluding inference from round one, we see observation is necessary. Next Four Proofs My opponent has injected an interesting challenge, showing the deteriorating process in all classifications of speciation. Although I see it as irrelevant, he wants to make that distinction and I may not have another chance as this is round four. Wikipedia makes 4 different distinctions which are allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. [2] Proof 3 Allopatric Degenerative Speciation Allopatric speciation is speciation that occurs from a population becoming isolated from each other. This means no interaction occurs within the populations. There are three main characteristics of this speciation that causes the isolated populations to undergo phenotype and genotype divergence which are a) different selective pressures, b) each go under genetic drift and c) different mutations arise in the populations. [2] Genetic drift is the change in allele frequencies. [4] My opponent will (probably) try to explain why these mutations are compounding in nature while I explain how they are actually degenerative. I could list numerous examples of allopatric speciation. However, I will let Con list one that he believes to refute my postulate by showing the compounding process at work. Since the burden of proof is shared and I have proved the postulate, the burden of proof rests on him to refute it. If I picked on I could be accused of picking one easy to defend. He needs to find one that disagrees with me. Proof 4 Peripatric Speciation This is similar to allopatric speciation however the speciation occurs at bottlenecks and not necessarily completely isolated portions. [2] Proof 5 Parapatric Speciation Also similar to allopatric speciation, parapatric speciation occurs in an adjacent niche where the two populations may interact from time to time. [2] Proof 6 Sympatric Speciation Sympatric Speciation occurs when a parent population diverges into two populations in the same geographical location. [2] 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution [5] This article is often cited in support of common descent. I will point to the observed instances of speciation or macroevolution and show how the degenerative process explains the event. I will explain many of these evidences in light of the degenerative process. I will combine this into one proof. Proof 7 Number One: Fundamental Unity of Life This uses the similarity of all living organisms, specifically the genetic code and the material of it to show that it is probable that all life had a common ancestor. This poses no problem to the postulate as reversing degeneration would produce a similar effect. Thus the fundamental unity of life occurs from degeneration from previous species. The origin of these species is outside of the postulate. This is analogous to the theory of common descent trying to explain gravity. The two don’t negate one another; therefore, no explanation need be invented. I will not attempt to explain any of these proofs if they don’t negate the postulate. Actually, I see no conflict between the evidence listed and the postulate. Many can be explained rather easily with the postulate, which I won’t bore you with trivial matters. Others infer the compounding process while others are simply outside of the dominion of explanation of the postulate. If Con disagrees, he may say so, point to where, and I will respond in round five. Final Words It seems the scientific community doesn’t disagree with me. No observed instance of information gain can be documented. If there is one, it would destroy my postulate. However the scientific community infers the compounding process either from fossils, embryos, extrapolation of trivial macroevolution, or other similar effect. So far, Con has been showing inferred gains of information. He must show an observed instance to disprove the postulate as the we point is saying the compounding process must be inferred. Sources [1] http://www.biology.uiowa.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.talkorigins.org...