Evolution

Rebuttal 1: Pro argued: "My opponent has made two statements that have no support whatsoever. Creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive, and NOT the only two options. This is a false dichotomy." Yet another misunderstanding from my opponent. Evolution and creationism need not be mutually exclusive for my claims to stand as this debate is about evolution, not theistic evolution. Rebuttal 2: Pro argued: "My point was that [the silver fox experiment] is a good illustration of a natural process." Because of the definition of "artificial," calling it artificial means that you contradict yourself on how good of a demonstration it is as it means you call it false and/or man-made. Rebuttal 3: Pro argued: "The silver foxes are irrelevant to your argument." Then they are irrelevant to yours, too. From this statement, you also seem to concede on the silver fox experiment not being a good example of evolution. Rebuttal 4: Pro argued: ">Is there any known biological process that allows the brain to exercise command over DNA?" Perhaps not, but Biology is the study of life, not the mind. Rebuttal 5: Pro argued: "Is there any known substance called 'will' that can mix with neurotransmitters? I believe the answer is no." Perhaps not, but then again, observably evolving species' brains have not been studied by psychologists to look for it when they should be about to evolve. Rebuttal 6: Pro argued: "I'm not sure what you mean by intentional evolution. 'Intention' does not exist in evolutionary theory, because it doesn't need to." By "intentional evolution," I meant that the DNA was mutating with no command from the brain. Rebuttal 7: Pro argued: "It is not analogous because your arguments are not letters in the cryptogram. They are letters that are somewhere else entirely." I did not mean that literally, and Yes they are. Such a statement is analogous to saying that a single letter in a cryptogram is not related to the rest of the cryptogram. It is not the whole cryptogram, but it still helps solve the cryptogram Rebuttal 8: Pro argued: "Artificial selection and biogenesis/abiogenesis do not exist in the theory of evolution." Then since my first two premises are irrelevant to this debate, that makes pro's rebuttals from round 2 irrelevant. Rebuttal 9: Pro argued: "Obviously fossils of the same species match. They're from the same species." I would like to apologize for not being more clear. I meant that the fossilized organisms are identical to species that still exist today. That is what my YouTube video in the sources demonstrated. Rebuttal 10: Pro argued: "That doesn't debunk evolution. It debunks the view that tonsils are vestigial. There are very many examples of vestigial organs in the wild, like whale fingers." I did not claim that it debunked evolution, simply that it pointed to a creator and debunked your statement from round 1: "There is no more evidence for intelligent design than here is for abiogenesis." Scientists will also not know whether or not these structures are really vestigial until they do an experiment where they take two animals of each exact same species and remove their vestigial structures, then see how their performances are affected. Rebuttal 11: Pro argued: "Darwinism Refuted is not a credible source." Perhaps not, but it uses credible sources. Here are two videos: one of evolutionists debunking evolution and another of a creationist debunking evolution. -http://m.youtube.com... -http://m.youtube.com...