Evolution: True? (Continuation)

I'm going to quote my self here because my opponent seems to think I conceded the debate. I will be placing emphasis on where my opponent is likely to have misunderstood my statement. "...there has yet been strong enough EVIDENCE OF PROBLEMS in the theory...". Translating this statement there is no evidence of problems hence there is no problems. If there is no problems with the theory then the theory can be accepted as provisionally true. 1. The first sentence in my opponent's contention here is the exact argument we are already having. Is there evidence for evolution? My opponent says no, I say yes, lets return to the debate. I need to also point out that scientist have been known to be human beings. Therefore, scientist can make NON-scientific statements. What my opponent quoted is a NON-scientific statement which is not evidence for anything. As for fossils found in the pre-cambrian, there have been fossils found. Fossils have been found and dated through the pre-cambrian. Its as simple as that, http://www.fossilmuseum.net.... 2. My opponent doesn't seem to understand the coding of genes. Yes DNA is a string of four letters. However, if you change those letters new amino acids will be produced. Example, threonine is an amino acid that is coded by either ACU, ACA, ACC or ACG. Lets assume ACA is coded in the genome. A point mutation occurs resulting in the middle nucleic acid being changed from a cytosine (C) to an adenine (A). Now we have the codon AAA. This codon codes for Lysine, a new amino acid! New information! I will illustrate for the voters using actual genetics language to show how new information can arise. ACUACCACA = Threonine, threonine, threonine The genetic information then duplicates (of which I have already shown evidence of it occurring) ACUACCACAACUACCACA = Threonine x6 Now a single point mutation occurs ACUACCACAACUACCAAA = Threonine x5, lysine Voters, where you started with three threonines, you now have 5 threonines and one lysine. That is NEW genetic information. It can be extrapolated (which has previously been sourced) to entire GENOMES and chromosomes duplicating and changing into new information. 3. Voters this is not a dodge, this is science. If my opponent wants to attack evolution, he will have to debate in the realm which it resides in, science. In science you need to debate in a for-and-for model because simple saying there is a Gap in knowledge does not provide the scientific community with anything to test. In sciences statements and contentions need to be testable. Any statements or contentions my opponent has brought up that fall under that category have been and will continue to be disproved. 4. Buzzwords are important because they draw the voter's attention to key phrase (considering it textual highlighting). Eagles are likely to have other selective pressures to maintain the wings, i.e. distance flying, speed, other prey in the sky etc. My opponent is attempting us to assume under his statement that an ostrich without wings is faster? Voters, this is sheer speculation and no evidence against the theory of evolution. 5. http://www.talkorigins.org... a list of human transitional fossils with cited sources in peer reviewed scientific journals. 6. I see my opponent is putting little faith in paleontologist. They don't just look at bones more than the two of us. Voters they spend at the VERY least studying the anatomy of hundred upon hundreds of animals, dating methods, chemical make up of bones etc. Paleontologist don't just look at bones they spend their lives studying them scientifically which is certainly more than I can say for myself and I am assuming my opponent as well. I'm also going to have to call my opponent out and ask for his sources claiming fraud. 7. Exactly how does my opponent justify calling the "Cambrian Slow Fuse" the most significant event in evolutionary history? I see no justification for this. Once again, in an earlier source voters can see explanations that are being proposed and evidence for those explanations. I do need to make the correction however on the confusion of terms here. The Cambrian slow fuse breaks no "rules" (needs definition). Scientific theories are DESCRIPTIVE and not prescriptive. These theories can't be "broken" because they are adaptive. When data comes in it is included into the theory and where there once was a gap, it has been filled. Voters, this gap is already being filled. 8. Giraffes evolved systems to withstand the extra blood pressure to the head. This is essentially my opponent's first sentence corrected. The current system the giraffe has is evidence for its evolutionary history. 9. I have already explained, the wing did not originally evolve for flight, it was later co-opted for flight. It is indeed frustrating re-iterating arguments but again, evolution has no PURPOSE. It does not set aside the materials so that it will fly. It uses everything immediately. Please see my previous explanation of the "Problem of Incipient Stages" 10. Now we have reached a point of disagreement on how the second law applies to EVOLUTION and not origin science. With energy input from the sun, molecules that replicate are being sufficiently supplied with energy for metabolism. Evolution with natural selection takes hold along with genetic material being produced (see argument 10 for genetic information increasing). With genetic information increasing and selection acting on this new system we have increased complexity rising out of chaos. 11. My opponent fails to understand how small these mutations are. A silent mutation and synonymous mutation results in no effects. Deleterious mutations are weeded out. The "mutation to turn your leg blue" does NOT exist. What does exist is minute changes that over 3.5 billion years have resulted in the biodiversity we see today. It is under the ignorant, blind and impossible assumption that mutations result in missing or color changes in entire appendages that makes my opponents argument invalid. 12. I will concede this argument as I have made the point multiple times; polls do not determine truth in science, evidence does. If my opponent continues to rely on majority opinion in a scientific debate, I only hope the voters understand the true process of science and vote Pro. 13. Doubt is not a scientific argument. If you read my opponent's source it does not inherently provide any information on the natural rate of extinction versus speciation. Speciation rates are debate as well as the natural rates of extinction. The data we know now is that species are dropping in the last century, as my opponent granted helped by human intervention. From there the data points neither towards PRO or CON and therefore the argument becomes invalid. 14. Evolution does not suggest mutation. Mutation exist regardless of any other science because there is documented evidence for it. Genetics tells us mutations exist, they are not hanging on the coat tails. The same can be applied to evolution. Evolution occurred, it does not hang on the coat tails of Origins science. Evolution as a theory stands on its own merit. Whatever occurred to create life we do not know, what we do know is that life evolved. 15. Again, this is hindsight bias. The earth has the right parameters and therefore it was designed? Not necessarily and the truth is that neither PRO nor CON knows how the earth achieved its parameters and is therefore not evidence for either side. 17. As has been discussed, entire organs do not result from "useless mutations". An appendix is not the result of a mutation. It is a result of a lack of need of a once useful organ. As for babies with tails, they have the genetic capacity for a tail but in most cases that gene is silenced. In some cases (rarely) babies are born with the gene turned on and are bone with a fully functioning tail (1) Please see comments