Evolution

I'm sorry about the forfeit, I have been too busy to post my argument. I. Genetics Consider that there 20,000 to 25,000 genes in the human and life began with around 300 genes. How on earth do scientists account for this massive amount of DNA gain. [1] Then consider that the water-flea has around 31,000 genes. [2] This mysterious mutation that must (1) add information to the genome and (2) be beneficial to the organism, has not even been observed. There is certainly no conceivable way a code of even 500 genes could form "independently" as you mentioned. And you say it is not a random process, but it is. What are the chances that such a beneficial mutation should occur? Most mutations are harmful or neutral. Seldom are they beneficial and never are they both beneficial and information gaining. Most mutations, beneficial or not, are caused by a loss or reshuffling of DNA which doesn't make any sense for evolution. If creatures are losing DNA far faster then they gain it, well, thats not what we would expect of evolution. II. Irreducible Complexity So you have half the structure in this tube, but then the rest of the proteins wouldn't have much of a purpose until it came together. You have demonstrated it is possible to develop the flagellum, however, half of the flagellum's proteins had to fall in to place pretty luckily in order to develop or else it wouldn't have mechanically worked. III. Abiogenesis Then why haven't scientists developed something living yet? It should be far easier in a controlled environment. The thing is, amino acids don't account for life. We need protein, amino acids, and whatever else to create even the simplest half-alive organisms. The simplest living organisms today are far too complex for abiogenesis, and we still need everything to come together, gradual or not, by chance into this first simple cell. IV. Cambrian Explosion Evolution must trend towards complexity, even if it obtained this complexity a long time ago. Cells don't just gather in clusters and turn into sea creatures. You say yourself it is very gradual and takes eons of time. The cambrian explosion is just the opposite. Suddenly we have every phylum. Since then, the fossil record doesn't even become more complex, but this should favor creationism, not evolution. I ask why then did the rapid information gain prior to the Cambrian Explosion stop? Why is our genome no longer becoming more complex but less complex? V. Fossil Record You use one example for transitional species, whales. What I find strange is that each creature looks extremely different than the last. You have mammal, giant otter, Dorudon, whale. Wouldn't this process be better accounted for? Where's the transition from Rhodocetus (giant otter) to Dorudon? And again, there is no information gain. These vestigial organs are an example of what could be structures becoming less complex, which doesn't bother me at all. I'm all for loss of genetic information. VI. Age of Earth Its interesting that you mention asteroids, because comets were also believed to have been formed during the beginning of the solar system. The thing is, comets can't last more than 100,000 years max. because they lose material each time they go near the sun. The typical comet age is 10,000 years, so to solve this, evolutionist made up something called an "Oort cloud." [3] Again, with radiometric dating you assume: 1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past. 2. The original conditions are known. 3. The process has not been altered by outside forces. So its not an infallible process. Sure, contamination may not have changed the result of the asteroid, but what about the two other assumptions? Referring to the source, I also believe the other twenty-one are more or less correct, but my two favorite are salty seas and the moon, which can be figured out by anyone. I explain the salinity of the sea. The average sodium input each year is 450 million tons, while the output is only 27% of that. Even with the most generous possible statistics, the age of the earth must be less than 62 million years old. [4] Or there's the oil pressure or the shrinking sun, the list goes on. I can't explain every piece of evidence for a young earth because there's a lot of it. VII. Creationism Has Equal Explanatory Power If its irrelevant then we should ignore it, but this is not the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." There is actually evidence for creationism. Just remember, both theories have their fair share of assumptions. Conclusion: While the majority of scientists believe evolution, this does not mean evolution is a flawless theory. Then you go on to make things up about creationism. Fake science? How on earth is it fake? Its not mythology, most people believe in a God that's real. In order for it to be mythology, you must show that it's not real. Many scientists who believe in God, have developed the more informative and complete theory for science they call creationism. I don't care for your deal but if you really feel you must, I can accomplish your challenge. I don't know how that makes evolution more logical though. You see the things discovered by creationists are largely disregarded, for I won't deny that evolution holds the majority. My sources are as legitimate as yours. You have evolutionist sources, I have creationist sources. Did you think that I began this debate without an opposing theory? Creationism is obviously not a "small fringe movement" for there are now many Creation scientists and Creation museums being built. "They distort the truth for a living to tell uneducated people what they want to hear." I'd like to think I'm pretty well educated and know both theories more than the most people, and I can argue evolution does the same. People are told humans and chimps are 98% similar genetically (its actually closer to 95%) and believe we evolved from apes. What they aren't told is we are 36% similar to a hedge-bush and 90% similar to cats. I don't know how creationism is an "assault on natural science." Science is, "any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome."[5] Creationists are simply trying to figure out how the universe works just as evolutionists are. They just hold different assumptions. Everyone's beliefs and ideas are based on some assumptions, but evolutionists try to ignore this. Some even believe there is nothing science cannot prove. In the end, you can say that creationism is based on "magic" and that evolution is based only on observation. But you have not observed any of this, from the elusive mutation to transitional species. No one has observed any macro-evolution no matter how much they insist they have. Evolution may just be the biggest lie every made. If you want to attack creationism, don't do it here, do it in a new debate and I'll defend the theory. Sorry again, for forfeiting the last round, and thanks for the debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://earthsky.org... [3] http://www.christiananswers.net... [4] http://creation.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...