Evolution Is Not Proven

Thanks to my opponent for a punctual response. Before I continue, I'd like to remind readers that I am not trying to prove that Evolution is false. What I am doing is showing how the following claim is not proven: “All extant life descended from a common organism via mutations and Natural Selection.” I ask that you please keep that in mind as you judge my arguments. In the last round, I said that if all animals evolved from a common ancestor via mutations and Natural Selection, there should be transitional fossils documenting the gradual changes. As examples of the glaring lack of expected fossils, I showed how there are no transitionals between bacteria and the Kimberella mollusk, to which my opponent has effectively conceded. To excuse the lack of expected transitions, Con assumes that “conditions required to form fossils are incredibly rare; were [sic] luck [sic] the fossil record is as good as it is.” This is just an excuse made without evidence, and does nothing to prove the certainty of Evolution (as defined previously). Analogy time! What if I were a Creationist, and I got into an argument with an atheist. I claimed that God can perform miracles and defy the laws of nature. My opponent calmly responds by pointing out the glaring lack of miracles to substantiate my claim. Cornered, I reply, “Well, conditions required to observe miracles are incredibly rare; we're lucky the biblical record of miracles is as good as it is.” That wouldn't be very convincing, would it? Nope, and it hardly proves that miracles exist. Con mentions archaeopteryx. I doubt he was trying to argue that this is a convincing transitional between bacteria and mollusks, so I'm just going to leave it be. Con also posted a photo of an Ediacaran fossil. It wasn't labeled, but I think it's Dickinsonia. Anyways, I'm not sure why he felt he needed to demonstrate that “we do have fossils of soft bodied creatures from the Edicaran”, since I never argued we didn't. In fact, that's a major point in my own arguments: soft-bodied creatures do get fossilized! Con says the “cambrian explosion” isn't “quite as impressive as it sounded in Darwin's time”. I don't think I ever argued about how impressive it sounds. I will admit, though, when you add the word “explosion” to the end of anything, it does add a nice bit of emphasis =D Con claims that “recent evidence suggest that the diversification [of the Cambrian Explosion] was no more rapid than other evolutionary radiations.” I have to thank Con here for using the word “suggest” instead of “prove”; since I'm not arguing that Evolution is false, only that that it is not proven, his statement has no bearing on my case. Con goes on: “[T]he cambrian explosion is marked largely by the sudden appearance of skeletons and shells which fossilize much easier than the remains of soft bodied animals so it's likely that the cambrian explosion was actually the "sudden" appearance of shells and exoskeletons causing us to find more fossils at the beginning of th cambrian. The phyla that supposedly appeared probably were formed sometime before the cambrian before shells became abundant.” (emphasis mine) Thanks again to Con's generous use of qualifiers such as “likely”, “supposedly”, and “probably”, his argument has done nothing to refute my case. Remember, I'm not arguing that Evolution is false, or even unlikely. I'm just arguing that it isn't proven. Con again: “Bacteria are not made of things that fossilize easily and virtually nothing before the cambrian has shells.” I know right! And that is the problem right there: virtually nothing before the cambrian has shells. Unless you want to argue that mutations and Natural Selection can produce complex creatures with intricate shells in a single generation from bacteria, this lack of plausible, shelled ancestors poses a huge problem. This problem needs to be overcome if Evolution (as previously defined) is going to be proven. Just to be clear, you aren't arguing that this mollusk: ...was born of a one-celled bacterium, are you? Con continues: “[W]hile bacteria CAN fossilize it's not very common.” As I already demonstrated, this is not a valid argument for excusing the fact that not a single transitional between bacteria and that mollusk has been found. A bacterium did not suddenly give birth to a fully shelled mollusk. That's not how mutation and Natural Selection work. Neither did a sponge, nor a tiny worm give birth to a mollusk. Millions of transitional organisms should have existed to bridge the evolutionary chasm between bacteria and mollusks (were Evolution, as previously defined, true) but not even one has been found. Saying that bacteria are too small and soft to be commonly fossilized is not a sufficient argument. Not all transitionals between bacteria (no shell) and mollusks (big, intricate shell) would have been soft, or even small. In fact, there would have been millions of transitionals with large, hard parts. Con: “[M]olecular clocks and bio-markers SUGGEST that sponges existed well before the cambrian edicaran [sic]”(emphasis mine) Many thanks again for using the word “suggest.” Again, suggesting is not proving, so this claim does not damage my case. Con: “Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected; also the ancestors of mollusks and worms were likely around during the edicaran but shells started to be seen in the cambrian.” I agree, gaps in the fossil record are to be expected, but not chasms. Are you telling me that the absence of any transitionals between bacteria and mollusks is to be expected, even though mutation and Natural Selection require millions of generations to accomplish such a feat? And that's just the gap between bacteria and mollusks. You seem to imply that the lack of transitionals between this (relatively) simple mollusk, ...and this majestic creature, ...is to be expected. If you want to prove Evolution, you'll have to do better than that. Further, any argument based on the idea that “animals without shells rarely fossilize” is useless when trying to explain the lack of transitions between the shelled mollusk and other complex, shelled life. In his summary, Con says “All of pro's above arguments are based on the absence of transitional fossils between single cells and multi cellular organisms and the rapid appearance of several major phyla in the cambrian.” That's misleading. It wasn't “several” major phyla that appeared in the cambrian; it was at least 20. Con's last major argument: Con: “That; my friend is what we call punctuated equilibrium-basically in periods of environmental stability animals stay mostly the same in a phase called stasis, but when a large environmental disruption evolution occurs rapidly(within the amount of time the cambrian explosion occured) in a process called Cladogenesis which creates a large variety of sister species over a short period of time(geologically speaking.)” That was in response to: “over 10 brand new phylumsuddenly appear in the Cambrian, with absolutely no gradual transition!” Con's extremely simplistic rebuttal is not sufficient. It doesn't even make sense. Punctuated Equilibrium doesn'texplain the sudden emergence of 10 major phylum, and has no relevance. Blaming some vague “large environmental disruption” hardly counts as trying. Also, labeling the Cambrian Explosion (as Con calls it) as “Cladogenesis” does not explain anything. Cladogenesis is just another way of describing the divergence of clades from a common ancestor. It's no more an explanation for the lack of transitionals than the phrase “God works in mysterious ways” is an excuse for life's difficulties. Con: “Also that comment about the differences between a goldfish and a woman not being enough to warrant different phyla is an argument from personal incredulity; a logical fallacy.” I'm sorry, but informing my opponent that a pet goldfish and an attractive woman are in the same phyla is not a fallacy; it's a simple statement of fact. Over to you again, Con.