The scientific evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming.

1. Minds are the only source of information. For his argument to be plausible he must have evidence of this. If he claims 'only known' then that is like stating cars don't exist because you see none of your road. This argument is basically lacking in comprehensive evidence about the nature of intelligence in our universe. Embryology and anatomy work well with chemistry in order to give detailed accounts of the biological process of cell mitosis/repair/function and along with various other organelles found in our bodies a comprehensive list of facts can be deduced from this hard work. Our bodies are functions of chemical and biological laws which are part of our universe. No suspension of critical thinking is needed like our opponent perhaps wants us to indulge. His argument falls into two categories. An argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity. While the majority of qualified scientists reject these argument ID believers push them as 'compelling objections to the theory of evolution'. In the Dover trail Michael Behe presented many organisms which were as he called them to be 'irreducibly complex'. Upon examination every single example Behe gave, was proven to have completely plausible and likely natural explanations according the current theory of evolution. It was again another example of a lack of knowledge on contemporary biology. Instinct is not an objection to evolution. Scientific experiments that attempt to reproduce aspects of evolution require sophisticated equipment, and intervention from highly trained experts to make these things work The experiments were actually simple experiments done with extreme care, as objection as poor as 'it was too well done' and a more serious claim ' intervention from highly trained experts to make these things work'. This a grave objection one which Lenski is not uncommon to hearing from people who object to his findings. The equipment included. Clean flasks. A cooling fridge to store samples. Plenty of time. A few pieces of small equipment nothing which stands out as being 'sophisticated equipment'. The highly trained men documented the actual 'blind forces' which produced beneficial genetic mutation after another. All that was required was an organism, food and time. I can't say much more about this as all it states is that this wouldn't happen in the wild. That is merely conjecture on the experiment. If that is his argument and he cannot refute the findings he must except evolution via natural selection can occur. Sources. http://www.gate.net... http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... This is a conclusion to my opponents first objections. Now I will detail my objections to Intelligent design. I will assume two basic tenants of intelligent design. (1) Organisms are designed for function. (2) The designer was intelligent and had foresight. If he did not then he would deserve the title of intelligent. As pro's arguments of intelligent design follow that intelligent functions e.g. DNA can only be created by an intelligent designer then this argument relies on the principle that animals are perfectly designed in their environments. If I can cite a single piece of evidence where we see wasteful or poor design then this is strong evidence against the case of an intelligent designer behind the process. This will be especially damning if I produce a more plausible naturalistic hypothesis which lies in the accepted theory that almost all scientific organisations support. Failures in the design. A giraffe has a laryngeal nerve. So do humans. The nerve function is to connect to the larynx, very simply the nerve should connect to the larynx as it is located literally a few centimetres away from the nerve. Instead the nerve detours downwards to the heart where it loops around the heart and then travels back up towards the larynx, this nerve is called the vagus nerve. Now in a human the detour is a minor couple of extra centimetres. In an adult male giraffe it is 15 feet in length. In 2009 the day after Darwin's day, Richard Dawkins and a group of comparative anatomists and veterinary pathologists dissected a male giraffe which had died at the zoo. In doing so they discovered the nerve, the video can be viewed on YouTube. From the views of these highly trained specialists, the nerve is not only unnecessary but completely wasteful and gives strong evidence to support evolution from water based life forms to mammals. In this view the larynx nerve complies with the evolution and extension of the sixth arterial arch and fourth branchial branch of vagus nerve. This is compelling evidence for the theory of evolution and just one example of the history of evolutionary development. Not only is this good evidence for evolution, it completely refutes the idea of an intelligent designer. Unless the argument is now that an incompetent designer crudely put together animals and had no foresight in the matter. This is just one example of poor design. My opponent clearly has muddled his argument completely. From first arguing that mutations are almost always bad and that built in mechanisms stop mutations from arising, to now stating that the mutation is simple a duplication, while admitting the mutation occurred. He clearly has no formal argument and instead is picking up and dropping arguments as he pleases. He claims the duplication of the gene is not adding new information or even a new function while barely scrapping past his acknowledgement of the new function I.E The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. This is quoted from the study conducted by the Biologists in charge of the experiments. So what we observe is evidence of gene-duplication with sequence divergence with added mutations which caused the 'refinement' phase of evolution. With a complete lineage of mutations adding to the complexity of an existing function, we managed to observe evolutionary divergence and even a newly formed coding for a brand new function. I.E absorption of citrate in an environment that previously would not let the E. Coli absorb citrate. With citations from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... We have 'Spontaneous citrate-using (Cit+) mutants are extraordinarily rare, but a Cit+variant evolved in one population (designated Ara"3)' . This is good evidence for not only Natural Selection but Epitasis also, which is far harder to observe. My opponent believes duplication cannot add information, but this clearly shows a lack of knowledge regarding the above papers which I mentioned, he also leaves out obvious facts including the progressive size and adaptability of the E. Coli and the random mutations which led to the major genetic mutation arising, to give E. Coli a new novel trait. I can even cite a second source for my evidence. In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations. My opponent copies and pastes an entire paragraph from a source regarding information, when I clearly have spent the last two posts working under the definition of 'adding genetic coding which performs an action which otherwise was not present in the organism'. This I made very clear in my first rebuttal and have proven over and over again in my Lenski experiment and with other sources which con has failed to address. Con moves on to try and refute the evidence I have presented by arguing from analogy. I made one analogy in my first post in order to explain a concept, my opponent now believes that creating analogy style arguments is acceptable refutation against known facts and observable data. This is absurd in the highest regard. Apart from an obvious copy and paste, his analogies regarding biological structures are all replaced with human devices which obviously have a designer. He creates a false dichotomy, one which simply has no bearing on the evidence. Now even more interesting is a very obvious concession of my original point. ' They merely developed the ability to ingest it under different conditions?' Con now admits they 'develop' traits. He Cleary tries to underemphasise this by saying this is 'little' progress but his concessions proves his arguments are semantics based and not factual. He also assumes that bacteria must follow a progressive lineage in his accepted time line otherwise all documented evidence is thrown out the window. He is arguing from incredulity here and as we know evolution does not contain a mind or a goal so the idea that you can compare progress of E. Coli and humans are being completely equal is just not convincing to anyone willing to look at the evidence. The random variations provided by the experiments cannot be intelligently selected, if you have no read the paper at this stage then the argument cannot be advanced. We have a clear concession of points progressively towards natural selection by my opponent. In Situ Evolutionary Rate Measurements Show Ecological Success of Recently Emerged Bacterial Hybrids Population Genomic Analysis of Strain Variation in Leptospirillum Group II Bacteria Involved in Acid Mine Drainage Formation These are two papers which detail extensively bacterial evolution in the wild, you cannot get any more specific than these two papers on bacterial evolution and emergent traits. I will make my closing and a few more points.