Evolution: True? (Continuation)

1. This is correct and my opponent is pointing out what is called the either-or fallacy. This however, is not the argument I'm making. My argument is that my opponent is stating that his theory is more parsimonious therefore is more likely to be correct. My argument is that because evolution has more EVIDENCE, it is more correct. If we have settled that this contention only reverts us back to our original argument, then it is useless to continue this line of arguing. 2. The reason this occurs is because chromosomal duplication is not continued in the next generation unless it occurs in the gametes which ARE the next generation. Once again this increase in genetic information came about through the processes of duplication and mutation. 3. My opponent stated in round two argument three "there is no better evidence for evolution because just as many observations support evolution as some other theory". I can not rebut what has not been given. My opponent makes this statement but does not elaborate on WHAT this other theory is, and what evidence is supporting this other theory. In science you can't simply say you are wrong. In science you need to say "you are wrong AND this is what I think is happening". A good example is Lynn Margolis' proposition for symbiogenesis. She was opposed to the neo-darwinistic thought that organelles like mitochondria evolved in the cell. She did not just oppose it however, she proposed a reason for them being there, symbiogenesis. She did the research, found the evidence and now her theory is accepted. That is how real science works. 4. Ostrich's have wings and can run at speeds up to 45mph, I would say that those wings don't inhibit movement. The reason being that New Zealand eagles would NOT have benefited from losing flight where as the Kiwi did. Its all about ADAPTATION. 5. Its nice not to bombard the voters with sources, but you can't claim fraud and not provide the data. As for the others, they have been scrutinized and it is a result of their scrutiny that we find them being transitional fossils. 6. This is not an ad hominem attack, I was remarking to the voters that they should read what paleontologist say because expert opinion does matter. Example, if my car engine broke down and I asked a mechanic and the weird kid down the block what was wrong with it, which opinion should I value more? Obviously the mechanic because the mechanic has had extensive study in cars and their workings. Therefore if my opponent things that the head is not half dolphin, but a multitude of experts believe it is half-dolphin, I will side with the experts. 7. Evolution has explanations, they just don't satisfy my opponent. Its because the explanations don't satisfy my opponent he believes they are wrong. Scientist have explanations that are continuing to be refined. My opponent is engaging in what is called the "God of the Gaps argument" again. I urge my voters to understand that it is completely OK to not know everything, that is why we learn. 8. The key qualifier is that SOME Giraffes and SOME bombardier beetles died. NOT ALL. If all did die, my opponent would be right, they would be all gone. But early giraffes and beetles that were able to adapt to their evolutionary pressures survived and those are the ones we see today. 9. An eye on the back of one's head would come at a MUCH more serious cost that would out weigh its benefits. Energy would be wasted creating new blood vessels, supporting them, rewiring the brain, new nerve endings, new place for the occipital lobe etc. Therefore its much LESS costly to simply be alert and turn around which is what humans do! And women or men would be attracted to mates that were more alert and aware of their surroundings as opposed to dense ones who were one tracked and unaware. 10. My opponent once again ignores the self organizing method that the earth has developed. Chlorophyll uses the sun's energy, to convert into metabolic energy, which results in a cell growing. Evolution by natural selection begins with the first replicating molecule and with that we have complexity arising from simplicity. This argument of HOW the first one came about is an origin question and not under the prevue of evolution. Once again, evolution BEGINS with the FIRST replicating molecule. How that molecule came about is under the biochemical science of Origins and NOT evolution. 11. My opponent seems to have misunderstood the genetics. A mutation does not make one's leg blue. In fact MOST mutations are what is called silent mutations, mutations that result in no change in the cells production. There are even more mutations that result in deleterious effects, killing the cell (which happens a lot in the body, however, our body produces that the deaths are insignificant). A few are beneficial and that is where natural selection acts. 12. I will quote myself in round 3 "to make my CONTENTION here is my source." Check source five in round 3. Once again majority does not determine truth, in science evidence does. To remark on an earlier statement by my opponent, scientist do debate, a LOT. 13. 14. I will make my same statement again, evolution is the change in genetic frequencies in a population of replicating organisms. HOW the first replicating organism came about is a biochemical problem to be solved, not an evolutionary one and I am not versed in Origins Science. 15. So what? How is this an argument for evolution. The earth had the conditions necessary for life to begin, jupiter and mercury didn't. This does not clarify the case. 16. In science we present our theory and the evidence for it. Others will then present evidence of problems in the theory and present their own theory with evidence in their favor. I'm urge voters to realize that there has yet been strong enough evidence of problems in the theory that would result in the need of a new theory (which has yet to be elaborated on) 17. Those are not useless mutations, those are pre-existing evolutionary organs, tissues, appendages etc that PREVIOUSLY had function but is no longer used (which is the definition of a VESTIGIAL ORGAN). Some are now useless while others have been co-opted for new purposes. Please define what a "pre-birth vestigial organ" is. 18. My opponent is completely correct, HALF tails do not simply appear as a result of mutations. Instead what does occur is a mutation in the genome results in a little more tissue being placed at the end of the spine. This tissue then provides an advantage as both extra cushioning and weight balancing. Eventually those with this mutation out mate their competitors and become the normal (this is called a gene going to fixation). Now with this fixated gene another mutation occurs for more tissue. This process continues until we have a tail that can be used for balancing. An individual who's tails grew too large died because the cost of producing a larger tail outweighed its balancing benefits. However, in this population a mutation occurs resulting in a contracting motion for the tail. This continues to become selected and this process of SLOW and VERY SMALL changes resulting in larger changes. Eventually you go from no tail to a fully formed movable tail (macro evolution). The evolutionary process is a result of adaptations to fitness in the environment. Some would say, "a tail would be handy anyway" but evolution does not think the way we do. It does not think ahead. If there is no IMMEDIATE benefit, it does not evolve. Humans don't have tails because we have excellent hands. It would be a waste of energy and resources evolving a tail to pick up a coke can when we have perfectly good hands that can do that already. Evolution is a purposeless mechanism which no foresight, resulting in complexity from simplicity by simple solutions to simple problems. It truly is, the Blind Watchmaker.