Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Thanks, Con.Burden of ProofOnce again my opponent is making the assertion that my assertion is incorrect. Therefore the burden of proof is on both of us. Both of us are making assertions. Not only that, but I've provided proof and my opponent has not. In addition my opponent has failed to refute my proof adequately.Rebuttal"Throughout the debate, my opponent has asserted that additive mutations have never been observed. In response to my listing well-known additive mutations (changes in bone density, malaria resistance, lactose intolerance), my opponent merely states that I am assuming evolution happened. This is false. Even if my opponent is correct (which I don't for a second think that he is) and evolution did not occur, the fact remains that there have been observed additive mutations, which refutes my opponent's assertion that such mutations have never been observed. Evolution is not a necessary "assumption" for the observation of additive mutations; these observations are independent."My opponents links are to articles and studies on mutations that are not additive. In some cases they are changes in a single allele that makes a gene non-functional, other times it is a loss of a gene altogether. Most of the time they are mutations that prevent the cell from stopping what its doing so it continues to repeat the process its doing over and over causing negative harmful effects."There is no reason to think that loss of function mutations are not additive so long as the function that is being lost in these mutations was disadvantageous, as is clearly the case in the malaria example."Additive meaning they add new DNA. A single loss of a gene causes sickle cell anemia which makes people immune to malaria. This is still not an additive mutation. It is a mutation that is positive in the sense that it makes them immune to malaria, but negative in the sense that they now have all the problems of sickle cell anemia."Additive mutations by definition are mutations that increase reproductive fitness. This means that the mutation increases the probability of successful reproduction. If this same mutation had later benefits (after the reproductive stage) that were harmful, it would remain an additive mutation, as there is no "fitness" after the reproductive stage. All that matters in terms of additive mutations is that fitness (which entails that the individual in question is before or at the stage of reproduction) is enhanced."My opponent is confusing Additive Mutations with Positive Mutations. Positive Mutations are any mutation that gives an advantage in the natural selection process. These can be subtractive mutations that remove a trait that is detrimental to the organism. For instance lizards have two pigments: yellow and blue. Now a lizard living in a green environment like a forest would benefit from having both pigments, but a lizard living in a desert would benefit more from having yellow pigment and an aquatic lizard would benefit more from the blue pigment. In both cases the lizard would have to lose a pigment to have a 'Positive Mutation'. Additive mutations are when new DNA is added. For instance for a micro-organism to evolve into an animal it would have to gain all the DNA to form the organs and nerves and brain. Additive mutations have never been seen in nature or in the lab. They simply don't exist. They can't exist because the cell prevents it with gene and protein networks as well as having at least 7 different checks to make sure the DNA is copied and interpreted correctly."Unfortunately, you haven't presented me with any "science" to refute."Unfortunately my opponent is under the impression that you can't be a scientist unless you believe in evolution, which is an instance of the Unwarranted Assumption Fallacy from https://en.wikipedia.org..."The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context."In this case my opponent is making the unwarranted assumption that it takes more than a degree to make a scientist and that to do science it takes more than following the scientific method. My opponent is making the circular argument that it requires a belief in the theory of evolution to be a scientist and to do science. The links I provide are from people that have degrees and follow the scientific method. Therefore they are scientists and they do science. My opponent has yet again failed to refute the facts I've presented and instead either misunderstood, or refused to acknowledge the science I've presented."No, you couldn't. Your sources consist entirely of biased creationist websites whereas mine consist of unbiased academic references. The difference in credibility could not possibly be more evident."My opponent continues to make the same mistake over and over. They continue to make the fallacy of motive that I've linked in previous rounds and completely ignored the evidence I've provided. If my sources were no good, then their facts would be easily refuted. My opponent is unable to (or chooses not to) refute these facts so they must be conceding that they are good solid facts. The 'unbiased' academic sources my opponent provided touted 'junk DNA' for years until a creationist scientist looked into it and found that it has a purpose. To date they've found a purpose for almost all of what they used to call 'junk DNA', just as those same sources used to recommend removing the appendix because they thought it was a vestigial organ. It turns out that it is a safe house for helpful micro-organisms in times of sickness. My opponents sources are at least as biased as the sources I'm using if not more."Funny enough, this would make a lot more sense if you were referring to creationism."Sadly my opponent is getting dangerously close to using insults rather than debate."In what sense can this "conclusion" possibly be considered "basic logic"?"Its simple. 3D fossils prove that each layer was put down rapidly. Polystrate fossils prove that most if not all layers were put down at the same time. You can't get much more basic than that."Neutral and harmful mutations are not "all we find". As I have shown throughout the debate, there are numerous examples of additive mutations."Again, you are confusing what evolutionists call positive mutations. They are not the same thing as additive mutations requires for different kinds of organisms to evolve. You have shown neutral and negative mutations that my be positive in certain situations, such as not growing feet being a 'positive' mutation to avoid athletes foot."If you have an exact DNA match then the two organisms are clearly direct relatives, and there would be no need for convergent evolution. How is this supposed to be an argument against the existence of convergent evolution?"Actually no. Following different genes you find that other organisms have exact matches that are in different branches. Then in the same original organism you find genes that are in an organism from a different branch of the tree. Which is why it forms a network. It would be like finding vascular DNA in a tree and finding the exact same DNA in a giraffe.SummaryMy opponent continues to assert that I haven't provided proof by disqualifying my sources, unfortunately everyone now knows that this is a form of the fallacy of motive. Not only that but my opponent has shown their inability to understand much of what I've posted including additive mutations. My opponent claims I am using circular arguments, but is in fact using a circular argument to try to render my sources invalid. Unfortunately no scientist is unbiased and no article or paper written by a scientist is unbiased as we saw from the appendix and junk DNA. My opponent has failed to refute even a single fact I've presented.SourcesCredibility has nothing to do with this debate. Refutation of facts does. My opponent has failed to refute any of the facts I've presented. If, as my opponent says, my sources are invalid then the facts I've presented should be easily refuted. My opponent has failed to even address the facts I've presented and still seems to be hung up on sources. When you set aside the fallacious arguments my opponent has made you find very little of substance in their assertion that evolution hasn't been proven false by science.