Evolution Is Falsified

1. Nested Set Violation "Did multiple instances of the trait arise the same way? Yes. But don't take my word for it:"the theory [is] that the force driving the evolution of [germ-cell formation] is enhanced evolvability of the soma"(8)In summary: The trait of germ-cell preformation arises multiple times, the same way (selection for enhanced evolvability of the soma), in completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree. "I will concede this much. But when I said same way, I was referring to the macrostructure, or anatomical features of the trait. Indeed the multiple possible valid examples has clearly illustrated that much. Now, as a matter of fact, let's get to his justification for the 'in the same way' phrase:"However, I just pointed out that the driving force behind the evolution of germ-cell formation types (in general) is the same. It follows from this that the driving force behind the evolution of each instance of a new germ-cell formation, preformation, is also the same. "The justification given clearly has ASSUMED evolution to be true in order to falsify it. Thereby is a fallacious argument, and invalid excuse for sticking with this trait without describing its anatomical or macro structural features which would have been plenty enough to satisfy (or nit) that criteria set. "This is an appeal to emotion. My burden is not to demonstrate that Evolution is actually falsified. My burden is only to meet any one of Con's challenges as explicitly presentedin the first round. It is possible to vote for me while still subscribing to the Theory of Evolution. "The title of the debate was "Evolution is Falsified". The title is the first principle governs the format of the debate, sets the BoP etc. "Now let's talk about monkey-butts. Con said I'd complete his challenge if I showed "any primate with a fatty hump ( " ). " I showed the Crested Macaque, which is a primate that has a fatty hump. In other words, the females have big butts and I cannot lie, this is something Con can't deny. "I lol'd"I see a few ways Con could try to weasel his way out of this. He could argue that the butt of the female monkey is actually not that fatty (offensive to the monkey), or that the monkey butt actually consists of a pair of humps, and not just one. I see no luck with the first venture, and the second one just doesn't make mathematical sense. If a primate has 2 fatty humps, it is also true that it has 1 fatty hump. "You have not demonstrated that these humps are indeed fatty. Thereby you have failed at fulfilling your BoP at demonstrating this point. "As if the monkey's butt wasn't enough, check out the embedded video for another example of a primate with fatty humps. "I lol'd again. Again we are toying around with the 'in the same way' clause. Which you haven't even attempted to address semantically, let alone anatomically, etc.2. Fossil Record Violation"Con dismisses my entire argument on this point as a "chronological violation ( " ) in name and nothing more. " This ignores most of my argument. My main point was that a more advanced bird is dated older, according to the fossil evidence, than a more primitive bird. This is a chronological violation because according to Evolution, simpler creatures are the ancestors of more advanced creatures. Following this logic, the more primitive bird is the ancestor of the more advanced one, even though this ancestor appears after it's descendant in the fossil record. "You have completely ignored the point I made that these species are not in direct lineage ( or even on first cousin-ship terms) with each other. Thereby this chronological violation you attempt to point out is a false one. Second of all, only the archaeopteryx is considered in the genus of birds. "If hypothesizing that the birds are of different lineages which evolved flight at different rates (Convergent Evolution) is a legitimate means of refuting this violation, than no chronological violation can even be conceived of that can't be refuted with sufficient hypothesizing. In other words, my task is logically impossible. "No, it's not. And I gave you the references that show that these two species belong to 2 separate clades, as well as the other members of their respective clades which we have fossil evidence for. Thereby demonstrating we have positive evidence beyond that of a hypothesis, but instead is a tested one, a theory. Furthermore this is not an example of convergent evolution, since the feathered trait came from their common ancestor which I have already provided the reference and rebuttal for. "By playing the Convergent Evolution card, my opponent effectively concedes that this particular challenge was not presented in good faith. Fortunately for me, I have recourse: since I only have to fulfill 1 out of the 3 challenges to win this debate, it's not necessary for me to win this particular one. "My opponent has accused me of playing the "Appeal to emotion" card. I will accuse him of the same. Please note it was Gade who issued the challenge, and Gade who selected his own criteria, and therefore has only himself to blade if he didn't like the ones he selected.3. Irreducible Complexity"Con wrongly claims I did nothing to support the idea that the eye is irreducibly complex other than asserting; actually, I argued that half an eye would not convey sufficient benefit to be selected for by Natural Selection, and so a full eye could not evolve from part of an eye. Con has said nothing in respect to this point. To support his claim that the eye could have evolved incrementally in 400,000 years, he cites a pay-per-view journal of which I am only allowed to view the abstract. As such, I am unable to argue against the logic which led the authors to their conclusion, and this argument boils down to a blind appeal to authority. "If you wanted the paper you could have just asked me directly and I would have provided it, although I am glad you took the time to try and look at it however. Also I have already rebutted the stages of the evolution of the eye n my first rebuttal, and given demonstrations of species living today which show some of these primitive examples of eyes in even today's species. Even if we ignored the paper you were not able access, you have still failed to demonstrate it's irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is define as follows"A system in which the removal of any one of its core components will cause the system to lose its function. Such a system that cannot have been generated by an integrative bottom-up process"Pro needed to demonstrate the eye was irreducibly complex first. And the closes he has come to doing so is 'what good is half an eye' which I have already comprehensively rebutted in the first round""it is inconceivable that these intermediate stages would be found even if they did exist. "(emphasis mine)My opponent's claim is that the eye evolved incrementally from a light-sensitive path of cells, yet displays doubt that intermediate stages of eye evolution actually exist! "I can understand why you might have been confused by that sentence. I will clarify by saying I was referring to the fossils that would demonstrate the intermediate stages of the eye as it evolved in the species. 5. Closing Statement Thank you very much to Gade for inviting me to this. .. . Colourful debate. And I thank the readers for persisting. I hope we can do this again (in a slightly more elegant format) sometime.