Evolution Is Falsified

Nested Hierarchy Violation Remember my burden: To demonstrate “[a]ny trait that [arises] in at least 2 instances in the same way in two completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree” By Con's own admission, a new type of germ-cell formation evolved multiple times. But don't take Con's word for it: “Remarkably, at several taxonomic levels, both epigenesis and preformation exist in different lineages, and consequently, [germ-cell formation type is] entirely different ( … ) in closely related species.”(8) So it's well-established that this trait arose “in at least 2 instances” in “two completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree.” This brings me to the next point: Did multiple instances of the trait arise the same way? Yes. But don't take my word for it: “the theory [is] that the force driving the evolution of [germ-cell formation] is enhanced evolvability of the soma”(8) In summary: The trait of germ-cell preformation arises multiple times, the same way (selection for enhanced evolvability of the soma), in completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree. Con argues that instances of the trait did not arise the same way: “the preformation pathway has indeed arisen in different ways in different branches of the evolutionary tree.”(emphasis mine) However, I just pointed out that the driving force behind the evolution of germ-cell formation types (in general) is the same. It follows from this that the driving force behind the evolution of each instance of a new germ-cell formation, preformation, is also the same. Now Con is cornered because I've satisfied my burden here. So what move does he make now? He plays the “Convergent Evolution” card: He makes the ad hoc argument that I must alsodemonstrate my examples are not a result of Convergent Evolution. This is not a valid rebuttal. First of all, the term “Convergent Evolution” wasn't mentioned in my burden at the start of this debate. Secondly, and most importantly, forcing me to demonstrate that my examples are not a result of “Convergent Evolution” makes my task not just practically impossible, but logically impossible: “Convergent Evolution” is, by definition, the presence of the same trait arising in multiple locations of the Nested Hierarchy. Another argument from Con also withers away under close scrutiny: “the readers will have to decide for themselves if they really think it really does fulfil [sic]what the debate topic entails “Evolution is Falsified”” This is an appeal to emotion. My burden is not to demonstrate that Evolution is actually falsified. My burden is only to meet any one of Con's challenges as explicitly presentedin the first round. It is possible to vote for me while still subscribing to the Theory of Evolution. Now let's talk about monkey-butts. Con said I'd complete his challenge if I showed “any primate with a fatty hump ( … ).” I showed the Crested Macaque, which is a primate that has a fatty hump. In other words, the females have big butts and I cannot lie, this is something Con can't deny. I see a few ways Con could try to weasel his way out of this. He could argue that the butt of the female monkey is actually not that fatty (offensive to the monkey), or that the monkey butt actually consists of a pair of humps, and not just one. I see no luck with the first venture, and the second one just doesn't make mathematical sense. If a primate has 2 fatty humps, it is also true that it has 1 fatty hump. But instead, he plays the ad hoc card: he says that I don't just have to show a primate with a fatty hump, I also have to show that it's not just superficially similar to a camel's fatty hump! Sorry Con, I reject this additional, ad hoc burden of proof. You said a primate with a fatty hump would constitute a “clear violation”, and I provided it. The second rebuttal Con tries is to put the words “fatty hump” in quotes and refer to it as “the swelling of the backsides females, with the purpose of attracting mates.” I fail to see how these properties make the monkey's butt any less fatty or humpy. As if the monkey's butt wasn't enough, check out the embedded video for another example of a primate with fatty humps. http://www.youtube.com... Fossil Record Violation Con dismisses my entire argument on this point as a “chronological violation ( … ) in name and nothing more.” This ignores most of my argument. My main point was that a more advanced bird is dated older, according to the fossil evidence, than a more primitive bird. This is a chronological violation because according to Evolution, simpler creatures are the ancestors of more advanced creatures. Following this logic, the more primitive bird is the ancestor of the more advanced one, even though this ancestor appears after it's descendant in the fossil record. If hypothesizing that the birds are of different lineages which evolved flight at different rates (Convergent Evolution) is a legitimate means of refuting this violation, than no chronological violation can even be conceived of that can't be refuted with sufficient hypothesizing. In other words, my task is logically impossible. By playing the Convergent Evolution card, my opponent effectively concedes that this particular challenge was not presented in good faith. Fortunately for me, I have recourse: since I only have to fulfill 1 out of the 3 challenges to win this debate, it's not necessary for me to win this particular one. Irreducible Complexity Con wrongly claims I did nothing to support the idea that the eye is irreducibly complex other than asserting; actually, I argued that half an eye would not convey sufficient benefit to be selected for by Natural Selection, and so a full eye could not evolve from part of an eye. Con has said nothing in respect to this point. To support his claim that the eye could have evolved incrementally in 400,000 years, he cites a pay-per-view journal of which I am only allowed to view the abstract. As such, I am unable to argue against the logic which led the authors to their conclusion, and this argument boils down to a blind appeal to authority. Con goes on to say something very interesting: “Given that our first examples of eyes appeared during the lower Cambrian period (540 Mya) it is inconceivable that these intermediate stages would be found even if they did exist.” I call this quote “interesting” because Con shoots himself in the foot when he implies that intermediate stages of eye evolution may not even exist: “it is inconceivable that these intermediate stages would be found even if they did exist.”(emphasis mine) My opponent's claim is that the eye evolved incrementally from a light-sensitive path of cells, yet displays doubt that intermediate stages of eye evolution actually exist! If the eye does not evolve in stages, it either did not evolve (which supports my argument that it originated fully-formed and irreducibly complex) or it evolved without any intermediates, meaning that a light-sensitive patch of cells gave rise to a fully formed eye in a giant leap of evolution that would put the supposed Punctuated Equilibrium of the Cambrian Explosion to shame! Another interesting aspect of Con's quote is that when he mentions first examples of eyes in the lower Cambrian, he seems to be referring to “highly advanced compound eyes, each with over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses and a specialized ‘bright zone’ ( … ) The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms.”(9)(emphasis mine) So all the fossils we've ever found to date provide zero evidence of evolving eyes, given that the oldest fossil eyes we have are “as advanced as those of many living forms.”Con's best rebuttal here is to claim that we haven't found transitional eye fossils because they aren't fossilized easily. This is easily refuted: “The fossil record has ( … ) been inadequate in providing insight into the early evolution of eyes during the initial radiation of many animal groups known as the Cambrian explosion. This is surprising because Cambrian Burgess-Shale-type deposits are replete with exquisitely preserved animals, especially arthropods, that possess eyes.”(9) Note that I deleted the phrase “until now” from the above quote. This is because the paper considers the fossils it discusses as “insight into the early evolution of eyes”, but that is a non-sequitur because the same paper describes these eyes as “as advanced as those of many living forms.” Eyes as advanced as modern eyes cannot possibly provide insight into the supposed evolution of modern eyes. Con commits the same fallacy by using the eyes of a modern flatworm as evidence of the evolution of modern eyes. For those interested in what a real Planarian Flatworm looks like, check out the 2nd embedded video that I had the pleasure of recording myself! Before I hand over the round to my opponent, here are some final remarks regarding the irreducible complexity of the human eye: A flat patch of light-sensitive cells (such as those of the Flatworm) cannot evolve into a spherical eye-ball (such as those of Humans) because there is no benefit of a non-spherical eye over a flat eye: both convey a level of spatial awareness to an organism, but an eye that is only semi-spherical would offer a very distorted sense of direction, while a completely flat patch of light-sensitive cells would not distort a perception of the source of light at all. Thus, to make a leap from flat eyes to spherical eyes would require overriding Natural Selection's pressure to select against a half-formed, distorting eye. Good luck in the final round, Con. I'd like to remind the voters that I only have to satisfy 1 out of the 3 challenges to win this debate. http://www.youtube.com... (8) http://www.reproduction-online.org... (9) http://www.nature.com...