Evolution is not the best scientific model for the origin of species

I wasn't sure if anyone would take it. As this is my first encounter with Mike_10-4, I took the liberty of looking up some of his debates. He is newer to DDO than I am, but he's definitely of a good caliber, and I'm looking forward to a "Great Debate". =D I liked your profile picture, so I had to quote it. II) Introduction to Opening Arguments It is not possible to prove absolutely that evolution is the best model, but if a better model is known, it should be almost trivial to show that evolution is not the best. This is not a debate over whether or not the Theory of Evolution is a good model; it is a debate over whether or not there is a better model. Therefore, I framed this debate such that Pro has an easier task and the BoP. I will take on the BoP to show that whatever model Pro proposes is not better than evolution. III) Further Definitions for the Benefit of Voters That said, I should have fleshed out the idea of "better" in round 1, so I will flesh out the idea further for the sake of voters. If Pro disagrees with it or would like to add to it, I request we come to an agreement in comments quickly so his round 2 can include the amended and agreed upon idea. As defined, a scientific model is used to describe the behavior of real objects. The best scientific model for determining the origin of species should be able to account for the observations made about DNA, fossils, and the various properties of animals including locality, behavior, capabilities, etc. IV) Opening Arguments I will attempt to provide ways in evolution meets the idea of "best" scientific model by addressing various observations of physical objects which evolution is able to account for. In this round I will focus on two specific predictions: the unity of genetic code and the location and age of fossils. A) The Unity of Genetic Code It is common knowledge that the idea of evolution was formulated by Charles Darwin before the discovery of DNA. The theory predicted small changes over time. So before DNA was discovered, it was predicted that there would be small changes over time to whatever caused animals to take the form that they do. After DNA was discovered, it was shown that such a model of life could be produced. Such a model is called a phylogenetic tree. Although there are various reasons evolutionists cannot agree to the specifics of phylogenetic trees, there are multiple reasonable models. One of the most comprehensive images I could find came from talkorigins which gives some details about how to resolve differences in phylogenetic trees [1]. Although talkorigins contains more details about phylogenetic trees [2], the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) summarizes the various observable causes to changes in gene structure and how to resolve these many causes into a phylogenetic tree [3]. There are a number of observable shifts in DNA structure between similar organisms. One of the most well known is the difference between chimpanzees and humans. Evolution predicted that humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. When it was discovered that humans had 2 fewer chromosomes than great apes (one fewer pair), evolution made two predictions: humans have a chromosome that is the product of fusing two chromosomes of great apes together and consequently telemeres (which typically only appear at the ends of chromosomes) would appear in the center of a human chromosome that matches two great ape chromosomes. Both of these predictions were found to be true [4]. B) Location and Age of Fossils Evolution predicts that small changes to DNA accumulating over time explain the diversity among organisms. However, many of these organisms are now extinct. These extinct species are commonly known as transitional species, and fossils of transitional species are called transitional fossils. Evolution predicts that transitional fossils will be found in locations on earth around the location of their ancestors and descendants on a phylogenetic tree and in rocks whose radiometric dates are at least close to chronological order as predicted by the phylogenetic tree. These predictions have been used to discover transitional fossils [5]. Geology provides humans with an understanding of the history of Earth's geography. A commonly held idea if that the continents now observed on Earth were once together. There is a history of separating and joining of continents supported by a number of sources including the radiometric dating of rocks, correlation of rock layers on two separate continents, observable effects caused by Earth's magnetic field, and more. This is geology and outside the scope of evolution. I don't intend to debate this theory, but I will provide references if Pro has any contentions with it. Given the history of continents separating and joining, evolution predicts that fossils of land bound animals that are newer than a continent formed will only be found on that continent. For example, most modern marsupials only naturally occur in Australia. Of those that appear in the fossil record after Australia was formed, only appear in Australia. To be explicit, there are marsupial fossils found on other continents, but not fossils for the marsupials that only naturally occur in Australia that only left fossils after Australia was formed. This is strong evidence that these species began to exist after the continent was formed, and this observation was predicted by evolutionists before such observations were made. I'm sure Pro would have a hard time finding any counter examples to this prediction when he gives his first rebuttal in round 3. V) Closing I'm looking forward to seeing what model Pro plans to propose in round 2. Good luck Pro. VI) Sources 1) . http://www.talkorigins.org... 2) . http://www.talkorigins.org... 3) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4) 5) . http://science.kqed.org...