pick a debate

So it seems my opponent wants to argue against the merits of evolution. Fair enough, my burden then is to show that evolution is not a flawed theory. Since my opponent lists 8 flaws, I will respond to them in the corresponding order. Also, it's quite obvious that my opponent has copy-pasted his entire argument. The grammar and complexity is so different from his own writing style (look at his introduction and his other debates) that it would seem that I wouldn't even need a link to show where he stole it from. Unfortunately for him, I have that link: http://www.epm.org... A quick scan will demonstrate that it's almost, if not completely, verbatim. Now don't get me wrong - I'm fine with borrowing other arguments. But to use them without citing a source is intellectually dishonest. ==================== #1 - The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance--they had to be designed and created. ==================== The meat of my opponent's argument here relies on the concept of "irreducible complexity"[1], which proposes that because each part of a biological system is needed for a certain function to work (like a mousetrap to trap mice), there would be no gradual process that evolution would work by. And in fact, this would seem like a somewhat plausible criticism. A simple rebuttal to this argument is to understand the important concept of exaptation[2], which is distinct from adaption because it refers to "a feature that performs a function but that was not produced by natural selection for its current use." This explains why there are seemingly irreducibly complex systems, and of how they arised. So let's take the mousetrap analogy creationists love to abuse. They argue that a moustrap needs ALL it's pieces to achieve it's function, which is to catch mice. And this is true - you need the board, the spring, the bait, etc. for it to work. However, this can simply have been an exaptation. Let's take away everything but the board and a clip - a simpler organism. Instead of the function still being catching mice, it would in fact can serve as a paper weight, or as a tie clip. This is how complex traits can evolve - as they get more complex their function can change. A paper weight can evolve into a mousetrap, like how feathers probably used to function as insulation and now are used for flying. ==================== 2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. ==================== No, information science does NOT teach that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. First of all, you have to define what you mean by "complex" information. Secondly, you have also have to realize that there are many intricate and seemingly complex physical phenomena with perfectly naturalistic explanations. Take snowflakes for example! Each are very unique, but the explanation for such a complex formation is simply the way how water molecules bond. And when in the world did every SETI proponent become inextricably linked to evolutionists? ==================== 3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. ==================== What you are referring to is simply only one type of mutation, namely point mutations. It's true that these type of mutations don't add new genetic information, but simply change the structure of a gene (which, by the way, can create new traits - and this is important in itself). However, if you were to ask of me an example of a mutatin that increases genetic information, then a very obvious one is gene duplication[3]. As it's name implies, it is "is any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene," which is a very important evolutionary event since it very well does increase genetic information. ==================== 4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. ==================== Only a fundamental understanding of physics will easily destroy this argument. The second law of thermodynamics states that "in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted[4]." Notice the important phrase CLOSED SYSTEM. We have yet to know anything that violates the second law of thermodynamics, and evolution certainly isn't a viable candidate. Do you want to know why we are an open system as opposed to a closed one? LOOK UP AT THE SKY. There's something called the sun (a major supplier of energy) and space. ==================== 5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. ==================== There are TONS of transitional fossils - in fact, to be specific every population of organisms are transitional fossils! The term transitional form is more of a laymen term used to symbolize a particular species that vividly demonstrates a major shift between species (between those that swim and those that walk, etc.). However, to be specific there is no definite line; the idea of a transitional fossil is merely a human construct. Yet, just to appease my opponent, I will supply one very famous example: the Archaeopteryx[5]. It's a clear transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs. ==================== 6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. ==================== I can't feasibly refute this argument without any clear examples of these supposedly scientific follies. The evolution of the genus Homo is rich with fossils, so unless you can give me pivotal reasons as to why we should refuse all fossils, there is nothing left to say. Sure, they may have been some mistakes or forgeries, but these blunders do NOT represent the scientific community as a whole but merely the fallibility of several individual scientists. ==================== 7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. ==================== First of all, give me a study or a link to such examples - if I can't identify the procedure then I don't know if whether or not it's the experimentors fault (which is often the case) or a flaw in the science. This is the basic underpinnings of the scientific method. The problem is that you cite specific examples of when radioactive dating supposedly fails, but you don't give me a chance to see it for myself! Secondly, the fundamental basis for radioactive decay are an array of physical laws. It's based on the principle that once the energy levels are tipped over, the system will become inherently unstable and attempt to achieve ground state via radioactive decay. ==================== 8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. ==================== Even if a vestigial organ was proved to have a use, which can occur due to exaptation, this doesn't do anything to attack evolution. The mere existence of a vestigial organ -- whether it works or not -- demonstrates that there is a anatomical similarity, which is actually one of the fields that are evidence for evolution[6]! ==================== Conclusion ==================== I can't say anything about the author who wrote this - he is simply laughable. I want to see my opponent's actual rationale, so seeing his response will certainly be interesting. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.panspermia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...