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

I would like to apologize for my overall poor structure and clarity. I am accustomed to informal, open-ended, debates on a generic forum.Clarity of ObservationBy observation I mean watch come into existence. This jingwei gene, for example, is definitely an actual gene. No debate. However, what is not observed is the fact that it came from a mutation. I am merely pointing out that it is an unfounded assumption. If this assumption is made, then he argument becomes circular and only accomplishes what sting theory has done, to show no internal logical inconsistencies.Thus by observing a mutation I mean mutation in action. Identify a living population without the gene and then identify a new "breed" of the species with the new gene. No Breach of ContractWhat I was suggesting is that an alternate model exists then the common ancestor one and was only a supplement for the information not required to prove the postulate. Sorry for straying off topic.Jingwei GeneAdding upon the need or this gene being observed in the making, this gene does not need to be able to be explained with the deteriorating process as the act of mutation was not observed.It is unfortunate for the debate as a whole that my opponent is in his last round and thus showing that it is observed in the act would fail to give me a chance to respond appropriately for the new information.RNASE 1BInference extended. The fact that this was mutating at all, as in jingwei, is an inference. Thinking otherwise without proof is circular reasoning. By showing that it could have been resulted from the compounding process would be equivalent to me saying it doesn't have to arrived into existence by mutations, thus negated.Proof 1 StandsLoos of biological functions loss of genetic by definition. Genetic information - the heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of DNA or RNA Thus showing a decrease of biological information would mean a decrease of genetic information must correlate as a result.This means that it is observed there is a loss of information. This also means there are multiple ways to loose the same biological information by a loss of different genetic information.Proof 2"The point I made was that I agree that the isolation of populations can lead to speciation through random (i.e., genetic drift) and non-random (i.e., naturally selection) events."This is the degenerative process as shown. Loosing the genetic diversity is loosing genetic information as some sequences that code for this information could be lost from the gene pool completely. Thus you agree the process occurs. This means the burden of proof is now shifted upon you.Proofs 3-6I could let you pick the event because you agreed the process could resin speciation at some level. Thus shared burden of proof is upon you to show the compounding process. I gave you the freedom to pick a case which you fail today, unfortunately. It is also important to mention that you thought I had to account for these types of speciation, which I explained why in the previous round, why not. If you deny that then that means you must account for al of these types of speciation as well. Which is impossible because you may not institute any new arguments in round five as rules. Likewise, I cannot list mine here as I cannot by rules.Replacing Proof 7Proof seven was intended to show the implication of the postulate bed the debate. In this post this is not a new argument, just a supplement to the information if this postulate is true.If true, then that mans the compounding process is inferred. It has never been scientifically demonstrated. This means for advocates of common descent, that they must draw back and realize the theory isn't as strong as once thought, if this inference is made. For creationists, it shows that observational science does not disagree with their view.VotingThere are four things to vote for in this debate: conduct, spelling and grammar, convincing arguments, and most reliable sources.Conduct -It is of my opinion that me and my opponent e ha TIED conduct in this debate. I have given no harsh words and likewise can be said of Con. I urge you to vote TIED in this factor.Spelling and Grammar-TIEDConvincing Arguments-I have succeeded, with confession of Con, that the deteriorating process exists. He has failed to show an instance of the compounding process that can be observed without assuming that my opponent is right. Thus the postulate has been shown to exist in one area and not disproven. PROSources - I have made no objections to my opponents sources and he has made no objections to mine. TIEDFinal WordsIf I were to do this debate again I would prepare before the debate more so then I did and word m first post more carefully so the debate is not over what we are debating as it as sort of drifted in that direction unfortunately. Fun debate Con. I urge voters not to vote necessarily for who they agree with, but for the actual debate.