Evolution

'Evolution is not a theory evolution is a religion. ' I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. What you believe - creationism- is part of a religion, what I believe - evolution - is scientific facts and evidence. 'Evolution can not be proven nor backed up by scientific facts. ' Another ridiculous statement. A scientific theory, like gravity, is a theory with enough evidence to be considered a proven fact. Do you think scientists just decided one day 'I think we'll make up an explanation based off of nothing that says all species on Earth are related,' no, scientists base their theories off of hard evidence and observation. 'Now genes are so complex that 550 million years, which is the amount of time earth has existed (according to evolutionists') hasn't even touched the surface of randomness. ' Wrong. According to scientists the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. 'Lets say for instance the human genome is 300,000,000,000 combinations long that's about 57,000,000 card decks. Now lets say I just need to get 14 of the same suit in order from spades to hearts. Now the chances of that occurring 57,000,000 times is statistically impossible to happen within the time frame of 550 million years. ' Ah, the bogus creationist chance argument. First: this has nothing to do with evolution, you're referring to the abiogenesis theory; the origin of life. We're debating on whether or not organisms have evolved over time, not on how life originated. Second: Abiogenesis actually wasn't improbable, I embedded a video at the top explaining how abiogenesis happened. Third: Even if abiogenesis was improbable, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is no such thing as an impossible chance, statistics don't govern the universe. If I tile a large section of the Earth with one billion tiles and drop a ball onto the grid, each of those tiles has a one in a billion chance of the ball dropping on it. Does that mean it's impossible for the ball to drop on any of the tiles? No, chance is simply a label for the probability of something happening, it doesn't necessarily disprove something. 'Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: 1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. ' Parent isotopes decay to daughter isotopes at a predictable rate. The age is simple calculated by the ratio of daughter to parent. But scientists measure the age of more than just the daughter and parent isotopes, they check the age calculation with the ages of isotopes from the same element and other minerals from the same pool of materials. 'In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices. Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years' The Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens was incorrectly dated. The potassium-argon method was used to date it when that method cannot be used to date young samples. 'So you see this method of dating is not accurate. Then scientist say there is a "missing link". Have we ever found a half mutated organism in fossil form? No of course not, nor have we seen any mutation since humans have had records. ' Obviously, my opponent didn't take the time to look at my sources in the previous round. I posted a link of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and I'll post a link of the 'missing link' between apes and humans that was found less than two months ago. mrkkid17, please look at my sources from now on before you post your arguments. Macroevolution has been observed, I posted a link of it observed in a laboratory in the previous round. Also, humans haven't been around long enough to observe macroevolution in nature. 'Mutation is an error code within the DNA. there is a 1000-1 chance that mutations are beneficial to an organism. Mutations occur about every 10 million duplications. That's 10^7. For 2 mutations to occur would be 10^14 that's 100 trillion. Now 3 to occur in a row would be 10^21 and four would be 10^28. Now there isn't even that many organisms that exist on earth, and turning a microbe into a human would a lot more than just four mutations' False. There are typically .1-1 mutations per virus genome replications, .003 mutations per microbe genome replications, and 64 mutations per human genome replications. The numbers are most likely higher since smaller mutations are harder to detect. 'The common example would be Africans and Caucasians. Africans being darker can stay out in the sun longer because of the region they have to live in. Now there are minor variations within a species that allows that species to still be part of that species, because an African is still considered human as well as a Caucasian. Different dogs breeds for example a golden retriever and a pit bull, two totally different breed but the same species. The oldest feather is dated 100 million years old and guess what, that feather is still a feather its not a half feather half scale is just a plain feather. ' In this section, my opponent simply goes on to prove microevolution. 'Knowledgeable people know that if mutations accrued over time(just like evolutionists say they have) then there would be plenty of finding of half mutated beings or beings in a mutated state. Now lets not forget Neanderthals may have been primitive humans but they are still HUMANS. ' Again, I've already showed you that transitional fossils exist. You proving microevolution doesn't rule out macroevolution. Small mutations over a short period of time accumulate to large mutations over a long period of time, until the mutated species can no longer breed with the former species. Now I'll let my opponent present his arguments. Scientists' support for evolution: . http://www.talkorigins.org... Age of the Earth: . http://www.talkorigins.org... Radiometric Dating: . http://www.talkorigins.org... Mt. St. Helens: . http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au... . http://www.youtube.com... Missing Link: . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Mutations: . http://www.talkorigins.org...