Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) a.k.a People are born with no bulit in Mental Content

I will know respond to Pros assertions and make the case that the mind is not tabula rasa: I base my argument on the logic of evolution theory. First, I will explain how tabula rasa can be disproven logically, given that my opponent accepts the Evolution Theory. The logical case that disproves Tabula Rasa relies on one assumption. This is the assumption that the theory of Evolution is correct. You see, evolution predicts that species evolve according to natural selection. This would mean that there is a common ancestor that all living organisms descend from. This includes Humans, Reptiles, Plants, Bacterium, etc. Therefore, the only difference between all living organisms (e. g. a Human and a Dog) is evolutionary descent. The differences between organisms is that they evolved in different environments. Therefore, the difference between a Human and Dog is the environments in which they evolved and their ancestors evolutionary preferences. Based on the assumption that evolution theory is correct, I will use a reductio ad absurdum to disprove the tabula rasa view of the mind. You see, as mentioned earlier, evolution rests on the assumption that all organisms have a common ancestor. Imagine two humans, James and Tim, and a dog. The difference between the difference between James and Tim and the difference between humans and dogs is that James and Tim have a more recent common ancestor than humans and dogs. In other words, every organism, including humans, has their own unique evolutionary history. Therefore, the difference between two different humans is the same as the difference between a human and a dog (or even a tree), the only difference is that two humans have a more recent common ancestor than the human and the dog. This relates strongly to Tabula Rasa. Tabula Rasa is an absolute assumption, developed before evolution was even a theory. It, Tabula Rasa, claims that there is absolutely no mental content innate in humans, the mind is completely a property of environment. Genetics, or evolutionary history, play no role in the mind. Evolution, if you will, does not apply to the mind. Therefore, any two humans that grew up in the exact same environment would have the exact same mind. Okay, so now we go back to the human and dog example. The differences between humans and dogs are evolutionary. Tabula Rasa predicts that evolution has no bearing in the mind. Therefore, if tabula rasa was true, a human and a dog would have the same genetic mental capacity (the same would be true of all living organisms, including trees and bacterium) as humans, and a dog that was raised in the exact same environment as a human would have the exact same personality as the human (again, this could even apply to trees). This is clearly absurd. Therefore, assuming evolution theory is correct, tabula rasa is based on absurd assumptions. The argument could also be put this way: 1) Evolutionary Theory is Correct 2) Therefore, there are evolutionary differences between different humans, just as there are evolutionary differences between humans and dogs 3) In Order for it to be true alongside some sort of evolution, Tabula Rasa would have to predict that evolutionary theory does not apply to the mind 4) The only difference between the evolutionary differences between different humans and the evolutionary differences between humans and dogs is that different humans have a more recent common ancestor 5) Therefore, the only differences between humans and dogs are evolutionary 6) Tabula Rasa assumes that evolution does not apply to the mind (#3) 7) Therefore, Tabula Rasa would then predict that a dog (or even a tree) has the same innate mind as a human 8) This is absurd, therefore Tabula Rasa is impossible Through a reductio ad absurdum argument, Tabula Rasa can be disproven based on the assumption that evolution theory is correct.