Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

My opponent, in his attempt to destroy my arguments, ignores several things.While there is good in statistics, and I trust it pretty much, it does not in any way allow for a falsification. Here’s why. If no nested hierarchy patterns are discovered, the “tree” is simply discarded, but evolution is not doubted. The null hypothesis is . On the other hand, if it is discovered, then clearly it is proof of evolution. Notice that my opponent has ignored one of the most fundamental principles of science.This principle is widely recognized and used in the sciences. It is known as the Falsification Principle. In case my opponent lacks knowledge in this, it goes somewhat like this.1. Theory T predicts observation O will not be observed.2. Observation O is observed.Therefore, Theory T is false. In his attempt to provide examples against this, my once honored opponent has resorted to arguing with sources. I will not respond to those “examples.”My opponent has said that complexity increases if it is selected for, but the article clearly states that complexity is not always an advantage. Now, my opponent has not, and still refuses to, provide a simple and clear criteria for how this supposed complexity can be selected for. My opponent, unfortunately, has provided no criteria, again, for discriminating between subjective and objective hierarchies! Note that he expresses disbelief at my supposed lack of knowledge. However, he has yet to provide even a shred of a criteria by which we can determine the difference. My opponent uses a whole paragraph parading his supposed knowledge of cladistics, little realizing that what he says in that has no bearing at all on the debate. Once again, he has proceeded to argue with a source, which explains his enormous sources. My esteemed opponent, in trying to show the readers that there is no contradiction in his arguments, actually create a straw man of my own! Notice that this “misconception” he speaks of is not manifested by me in my arguments anywhere. As such, my arguments not only stand, but a stronger for the fact that my opponent has to straw man them.He also contradicts himself, again! Let me quote two of his sentences side by side so that the not so observant reader will be able to see it.“...No matter how "fit" an animal is, if it's randomly struck by lightning or crushed by a rampaging elephant, the genes will not pass to the next generation....”“...No matter how "fit" an animal is, if it's randomly struck by lightning or crushed by a rampaging elephant, the genes will not pass to the next generation....”See right there? My opponent, I am sure, will be hard pressed to explain this conundrum. I challenge him to do so. He has said it within a paragraph of each other, hence it must have been linked by more than “randomness.” (Forgive the pun, but my opponent is really entertaining me with all of his straw man)My opponent has implicitly said that evolution has been proven because of statistics. Notice the falsity of this whole idea. In his statistics, not only is the null hypothesis not that evolution is falsified, it also fails to take into account the Falsification Principle. All that my opponent has succeeded in showing is that the supposed false discovery rate (FDR) is very low.To prove my point, however, I must show how the cars example is objective. As my opponent has rather irrationally not provided any criteria, I will take the first hypothetical example from the thread. (Note that all of his current examples are not arguments in the least bit.)I will assume here that my opponent gave a hypothetical objective hierarchy. “(i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.)”So now that my opponent’s example is clearly given, we can continue to how cars are absolutely objective. If cars A and B had music player C, and car D lacks the music player, then A and B had a closer evolutionary path!Notice the absurd falsity of this. It has become blatantly clear that A and B need not have to have a common ancestor. In fact, it is far more likely that they had a common designer!In his attempt to show me wrong, my opponent has not at all guarded from this. He has merely dogmatically assumed the truth of his statements. This is known as circular reasoning. He is not arguing objectively, not even subjectively. He is arguing with a fixed position that has no foundation as I just demonstrated. Conclusion:My opponent, although very great in the forums, is unable to provide simple answers to simple questions. In fact, he prefers to hide behind statistics and refuse to face the music. He argues with an incredible amount of sources, most of which have little significance to the debate. He claims to know the difference between “subjective” and “objective” hierarchy, yet he has provided no answer as to how they are distinguished, only shocked disbelief.Notice that in my opponent’s bluster, he has dropped my argument about the fossils. That would have been pardonable if he hadn’t gone on to make a straw man of my arguments! Notice that his glaring lack of formal debating experiences is costing him. He may straw man and otherwise commit fallacies in forum debates, where posts are not as seriously scrutinized, but the fact that he is incapable of even simple answers here is telling!Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about my opponent is his desire to show that I have misused my sources. (The article from Discover) Notice that in the attempt to do so, he clearly quote mined the source, but refuses to acknowledge it. I will end with this: My opponent has failed catastrophically in trying to make me wet my pants. Not only are his accusations baseless, his arguments are also intelligent sounding bluster. He fails to prove evolution at every turn. Isn’t it frustrating?