Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

My opponent is ignoring the proof that I provided. Micro and Macro evolution are not the same. The fact that the Conference of Chicago happened 35 years ago is irrelevant, because it is still the most recent conference on the topic. And the consensus stays. But apart from the source I mentioned, I also gave a clear contrast of the 2. Microevolution is described only as change in frequency of genes, it doesn’t require gene addition or duplication. Refuting “Leftovers”…. Again. My opponent is starting to show a growing lack of knowledge about the points he is trying to make. “You have an appendix that does nothing”. Very misinformed. Scientific American and National Geographic both have recently published new research and admitted that the appendix is not vestigial. “Appendix Rescued From Biology's Junk Heap” It has many very important functions: 1)Embryological 2)Physiological 3)Microbiological 4)Biochemical 5) Immunological Without going into too much detail, one thing it does is act like a quarantine for the digestive bacteria in your intestines to hide in when the intestine is in the cleaning process, if they had nowhere to hide, they would get obliterated, and would take too long to repopulate, which would leave the person prone to sickness. It also acts like a filter for other types of bacteria. Wisdom Teeth: They are due to a problem of genetic deterioration, not macroevolution. The average jaw size has become smaller, probably due to human diet, which is a problem for wisdom teeth, but they are not vestigial organs, in fact, there is proof that previous humans did not have a problem with wisdom teeth, because they had bigger jaws. Lots of people today have no problem with wisdom teeth, people with bigger jaws fit them just fine Plica semilunaris: if you go ahead and read The conjunctiva; Tasman and Jaeger, Ref. 17, vol. 2, ch. 2. You will realize that it is not functionless. It does help with producing mucus, but if you want to deny that, it doesn’t matter, because it also enables unrestricted movement for the eyeball when abducted. Without going into too much detail: When the eye is abducted the plica partially unfolds as the conjunctiva stretches so that movement is unimpeded. Damaging this part, limits your eye’s rotation. Your only evidence of the contrary is an outdated dictionary definition… the appendix is also defined as a vestigial organ, yet research has proven otherwise…. Science discovers new things. Definitions get outdated. If you think male nipples are vestigial by evolution you apparently misunderstand evolution. Are you suggesting that before only female humans existed? Or that men used to breastfeed? By your theory, the origin of separate genders happened before humans (in reptiles) so nipples can’t have anything to do with evolution. They are part of the process by which the embryo forms, and are relevant to embryology not evolution. Refuting common ancestry: I’m rather surprised Con tried to use this illustration in his favor. As you can see in the above picture, the fossil record leaps from MICROSCOPIC single celled organisms (Proterozoic era) into practically all the major complex anatomical lifeforms of today (found in Cambrian era), with absolutely no transition. The duration of the era is irrelevant, as no transition is shown throughout it. Is it a coincidence?? that…. where evidence of macroevolution transition most needed ….. it is completely missing?? The evidence is clear, the fossil record fails to show macroevolution, instead refutes it. Gene duplication: This is where it gets interesting. Can genes duplicate? Certainly. You mentioned 5 forms of gene duplication, but they might have been in vain because you missed the point. I stated that there is no valid form of increasing genetic info for macroevolution. I stand by my statement and you will see why. You mentioned that genomes with more genes are more evolved genomes… interesting. Let’s see: Humans have 22,000 genes Rice has 50,000…. In fact, the most complex genome is not human, it is of a bacteria called Epulopiscium fishelsoni. It has 25 times the DNA of humans, why? Because it has gone through gene duplication 85,000 times. Yet, it has not helped the bacteria at all, it gives it no new function, just clutters its DNA with extra genes it doesn’t need, it already has them. Duplicated 85,000 times and hasn’t caused anything? Interesting. Duplication is usually fatal, and when it’s not, it definitely doesn’t help. Down Syndrome is an example. If I duplicate a software programs code, such as iTunes, it will not work anymore, because the new code will not be recognized and could ruin the program. (or organism). I noticed you referred to gene duplication as a synonym of evolution. Gene duplication is not enough for macroevolution to take place. You see, if macroevolution happened, we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the Tree of Life (as you implied). But that’s not what we find, instead, genome complexity is random. Let me demonstrate: Chromosomes in… Humans(46) Dogs(78) Butterfly(268) Shrimp(92) Ciliated protozoa, a microscopic organism(30,000,000) Similarities between human DNA and that of: Cats:90% Bananas:50% Chicken:60% Cows:80% Mice: 75% Fruit fly:60% Similarities don’t necessarily mean a common ancestor. Did you know that Word and PowerPoint share thousands of lines of the exact same code? Does that mean they are both derivatives of another program? No, they both have a common origin because they were designed similarly, but it’s not a common ancestor (or program in this case). Nonetheless, apart from the flawed logic of your argument, it is worth noting that your argument is merely inferential, not empirical nor experimental, so even if it was valid it couldn’t be proof. But let me be clear here. Gene duplications don’t cause macroevolution because of the following: The indefinite regress problem: You could say that B explains A, and C explains B, and so on, but you can’t do that forever, it won’t explain new genes. If you started with one cell you can duplicate it all you want, but it never contained all of the genes that humans have. Duplicating the existing ones doesn’t explain new ones. So it doesn’t account for new genes. The Conservation Problem: Genes are very similar in many unrelated organisms, both ‘simple’ and complex, modern and ancient. Most genes are ‘evolutionarily conserved’. These facts argue strongly against gene duplication as a mechanism of evolution, because they indicate that most genes were optimally functional from the beginning. If my opponent is to argue for macroevolution via gene duplication, he would first have to address those problems. Despite his arguments Con has given many arguments, but I have successfully demonstrated they are flawed. But hypothetically, even if all of Con’s arguments were true, they wouldn’t matter, because my main argument from the beginning of this debate, which is yet to be addressed, “overwrites” all of Con’s, simply because Con is arguing for what is plausible. But Behe’s argument is experimental (scientifically confirmed in 2014) and is solid proof that macroevolution didn’t happen as the mutation rates are so low that it would require a planet older than the universe to account for the complexity of life through macroevolution. So, at best, even IF Con’s arguments were true, we could say macroevolution is plausible, but didn’t happen on Earth. But from the link you gave, I suppose you will try to refute Behe’s argument with Ken Miller’s response to it? So I think I know what you are going to say on the matter. But I will wait for your response before addressing it. (Shrunken URL sources from Scientific American, NatGeo, Wiki, etc) http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Pennisi, ref. 1, p. 2460 http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...