Evolution

My opponent spends the first one-third of his argument arguing that languages have gone from complex to simple. That may be true, and I do not deny it. BUT, that does not disprove evolution. Part of the reason why languages are getting shorter is because people are finding faster and more efficient ways of of communicating. Take contractions for example. They make speech faster and simpler, while not changing the meaning of the sentence. As mentioned, I genuinely do not see how the simplification of language disproves the theory evolution. "If fish, or fruit, or lamb was made from something so different from us it was alien to us, it would be rejected by our bodies. We couldn"t metabolize it." It would not be rejected by our bodies. Our body doesn't absorb the DNA of food, it absorbs the nutrients. As long as the nutrients are still there, there would be no problem with a different kind of DNA going into our system. There are certain things that we already can't digest, such as bark or wood. It has cellulose, and we cannot digest it, yet it's still made of the same DNA as we are. On a side note, humans have created a new kind of DNA, one with not only T, G, A and C bases, but also X and Y. It works fine, meaning that the DNA in our bodies is not the only kind of genetic information carrier that exists. http://www.extremetech.com... "maybe he"d like to give us an example of an organism, and list the gradual changes that occurred until it was a completely different kind of creature." In rocks more than 1 billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found. At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface; and at 400 million years ago, fish with jaws are found. Gradually, new animals appear: amphibians at 350 million years ago, and reptiles at 300 million years ago. This shows that animals evolved. The fish and reptiles aren't just going to pop in out of no where or fall from space, they're going to evolve from their predecessors. http://biologos.org... Here is another obvious physical evidence of the evolution. It is the evolution of a horse, specifically, its legs and hooves. Not only did the horse become much bigger, but the horses "feet" changed from having 3 distinct toes to having the one hard hoof that we know today. http://chem.tufts.edu... "If we were related biologically, one would expect that a mere 4% difference between our DNA and a chimps wouldn"t produce such massive differences." If you think about it, there aren't such massive differences. We're both in Kingdom Animalia, both in Phylum Chordata, both in Class Mammalia, both in Order Primates, and both in Family Hominidae. Only in the last two classifications do Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens differ. We are not that different. We are both hairy chordates, bipedal, have thumbs....frankly, we are not so different. Also think about this: humans have 24,000 genes. A 4% difference is a difference of 960 genes. While that is only a small percentage, a difference in 960 genes is obviously more than enough to make an animal look different. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk... "The fact that we are so different despite the DNA argues against evolution. In fact, because natural selection only proceeded in small steps, it could never make the quantum leap necessary to get from the chimpanzee brain to the human brian." There was no "quantum leap", and it was, in fact, very gradual. Take a look at the gradual changes of primate skulls through time. http://www.theistic-evolution.com... Now, let's look at the brains themselves. Brain size in primates has been increasing since 2 million years ago, gradually growing larger and larger, meaning it can "pack" more neurons, which essentially means more computing power. It is generally accepted the the bigger the brain size to body size ratio of an animal, the more intelligent it is. Humans have an enormous ratio, which has been steadily growing for a very long time. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... "Since the evolutionary process would not produce and pass on such excessive never-to-be-used brain capacity, is it not more reasonable to conclude that man, with the capacity for endless learning, was designed to live forever?" It is a myth that we "do not use 90% of our brain". Some people say we only use 10%, others say only 30%, but this is false. There is not a single part of the brain that we do not use. Slight damage to any part of the brain has large repercussions. Also, think about it this way. If we only use 10% of our brain, does that mean that I could just rip out 90% of your brain and you'd still function? Of course not! Evolution would not produce inefficient brains that would not be used. The brain consumes 20% of your body's energy, more than any other organ. If you do not use your entire brain, then that would be very inefficient and natural selection would remove people with inefficient brains, leaving only those with smaller, more efficient brains. Conclusion being, it is a myth that we do not use all of our brain. We were obviously not designed to live forever since, well, we die. If my opponent believes that God originally created us to live eternally, but then made us mortal, then why didn't he take away our "insanely powerful brains"? There is little to no scientific evidence that humans only utilize a fraction of their brain capacity. http://en.wikipedia.org... https://faculty.washington.edu... My opponent's next paragraph addresses my claim that embryonic similarities are evidence of evolution. He says that evolutionists ignore differences in embryonic development, and only focus on similarities. Of course there are going to be differences, it's two different species. I would understand my opponent's point if the similarities were small, but when so many chordates (including humans) have gill slits, tails and webbed hands/feet in embryonic development, that is too big of a similarity to ignore. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.teensadvisor.com... http://news.discovery.com... My opponent then, once again, addresses the shroud. Why would Jesus go against God's words? Exodus 20:4-"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God," by creating an image of himself to be worshiped? http://biblehub.com... Also, think about it logically. If a cloth was laid on a person, it would cover his face, as well as the top and sides of his head, yet on the Shroud, there is only the face. In fact, in the Bible, it clearly states that: "the body of Christ Jesus was coated with a mixture of myrrh and aloes. That He was wrapped with strips of linen cloth like a mummy." If so, then why is the Shroud of Turin only one sheet? Shouldn't it be multiple strips of cloth? Also, if he was wrapped as the Bible states, then it is (once again) completely illogical that only his face appears on the Shroud. If he was wrapped, then his entire head should appear, but it doesn't. Yes, we're still humans, but we've only been around for a short period of time, and even in that time, we've changed from neanderthals to what we are now. My "assumption" has considerable backing, while my opponent's assumption that we'll never change into anything non-human (or that no animal will change into anything else) has little to no backing. I await my opponent's response.