Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

" So where is the evidence that genes changing is fatal because I haven't seen it. So what if it's 1.5% or 5%, if it isn't fatal it doesn't matter." If you refer to my first argument, I've talked about how a mutation in a p53 gene messes up the production of a protein responsible for regulating cell growth. If the cell is growing and dividing uncontrollably, you have cancer. Another example would be sickle cell anemia where a change in a single nucleotide out of billions in the hemoglobin gene results in a distorted hook-shaped red blood cell instead of a healthy donut-shaped one. [1] There is evidence contrary to the claim that the chimp 2a and 2b chromosome fused to create the human chromosome 2. For example, there are genes found at the "fusion" site not present in 2a and 2b chromosomes. The site of this supposed fusion is in the functional DDX11L2 gene whereas the fusion-like DNA sequences of 800 bases are extremely degenerate. [2][3] A major flaw in your calculations is that you don't take into account the cost of substitution as seen in Haldane's dilemma. J.B.S. is a strong believer in the theory of evolution and one of three founders of population genetics. So the cost of substitution is that whenever a beneficial mutation occurs in a population, it has to increase the number of copies for the population to progress in evolution (If that mutation remained to the individual, then that beneficial mutation is useless for the progress of evolution). However, the rate at which the beneficial mutations can take over non-mutated genes is limited. So Haldane's calculations begin with 100,000 apes. Suppose that in that population, 2 out of the 100,000 had a mutation so beneficial, that the rest of the population died out. Then the surviving pair reproduced and passed their genes to their offspring. And somehow that pair produces enough offspring refills the 100,000 apes. If this process was repeated every 20 years for 10 million years, you would get 500,000 beneficial mutations which would fall short of the 45,000,000 or even the 22.5 million that pro suggests ignoring the fact that the genetic difference between chimps and humans is more like 5% so 75 million. As seen in this scenario, even with the unrealistic circumstances that is the best case scenario for evolution it still falls short. And with more realistic rates of fitness and selection, Haldane recorded that no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have taken place.[4] The example where elephants are gradually losing their tusks are not due to mutation but natural selection. Elephants with short to no tusks have always existed but since poachers are killing all the long-tusked elephants for the ivory, the elephants with the shorter tusks get to live on and reproduce to pass on their short-tusked genes to their offspring. I mean, why waste ammo on an elephant with no tusks. The example with the rats' tooth decay is artificial selection where the lab scientists selected the rats that had a slower decay rate and bred them together. That trait was already present in the population. The example with the extra flagellum is due to the loss of information as the mutation occurred in the gene that synthesizes the flagellar synthesis regulator so there is no regulation on how the flagellum in bacteria grows. We creationists define kinds as a term that is a larger grouping than species. The origin of kinds comes from genesis 6:19-6:20 "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive." God did not tell Noah to get every species of dog on board the ark but two dogs. When did I deny that speciation occurs? In fact, rapid speciation is a part of the biblical creation model as all animals today descended from the animals of Noah's ark. Just because different species can't breed doesn't mean they are not of the same kind. For example, Great Danes can't necessarily breed with Chihuahuas doesn't mean that they aren't both dogs.[5] [6] "DNA is not information in the way you think, those are technically Information but words need someone to create them, DNA doesn't need intelligence. We put the letters there so we could understand it better." Yet Pro provides no natural mechanisms capable of producing DNA therefore an intelligent mind must have been behind it. "Cells can exchange genes to as it has been observed on occasion, over time it can easily evolve to handing over more genetic information until it got to 50 50. The sexual organs wouldn't be to hard to evolve, and once you have sperm and eggs, they would evolve to make it easier to exchange more genetic information." It is important to note that this is not true sexual reproduction as only one partner"s genetic information is exchanged. Sex organs simply evolving would require new genes that produce the proper proteins to construct them. And both the male and female sex cells would have to create sex organs that can be used together to produce offspring.[7] "That isn't proof that is only speculation that he could exist. I want definitive proof that a god or gods exists. Pottery has evidence that it was created, a building has proof it was created, a machine has proof that it was created, the proof is that we can talk to or dig up where they were created. Life on the other hand has no proof that it was created and neither does the universes laws." What proof do you exactly want? Living things have intricate design in them from bacteria's flagellum to the human brain. It would make sense that there is a designer. Even Richard Dawkins wrote, "biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose." As I've said in my previous argument, the ATP Synthase, DNA, decoding system dilemma proves that in order for DNA to arise and be able to be used, all three systems must have arisen simultaneously and the chance that all three could arise naturally or by chance in nature is zero. Therefore it is logical that a designer must be behind it. Just because eyewitness testimonies aren't the most reliable doesn't mean they should be completely thrown out. This doesn't solve the problem with historical science. A detective looks at facts and interprets them to fit his/her story of what happen in the past. You cannot know for sure what exactly happened in the past. The reason that I didn't initially refute the "links" that supposedly prove that new genes can be created in the genome is part of annoyance. I find it irritating at that point that my opponent was throwing links whereas I have to put in three times the effort to read the articles in depth, do some additional research on the topic, look up the refutations of the claim then summarize it all. http://science.howstuffworks.com... Now looking at this article that Pro has used it mentions transposons or genes that are able to jump around chromosomes. Is this new information? No. Then it mentions polyploidy where chromosomes duplicate themselves. However duplicating chromosomes does not create new genes required for microbes-to-microbiologists evolution. It can actually work against it. For example, Down Syndrome is caused when there is an extra copy of chromosome 21.[8] https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...... What I found in this link was more proof that in order for species to evolve over millions of years, new genes must have arisen. This article does not bring up any modern instances where new genes have arisen. Let me use a quote that summarizes the article, "Chen et al. found that a surprisingly large number of genes had arisen in the D. melanogaster lineage over this 35-myr period. Here's a summary of their results:". I don't have the space to refute everything. "There hypothesis that it came from Viral DNA and evolved to our type of DNA. This is easier because viral DNA only needs one Protein which would be easier. I don't understand this area very well so I probably didn't do a good job explaining." Pro is dodging the issue that in order to have functional DNA you must have the mechanisms and the energy to make proteins but all three rely on each other. "The Iron was one, another is that densely mineralized fossils protected it over time. Others say it may have been contaminated and therefore not helpful to your cause." Mineralization does not explain the soft tissue that is still flexible and contamination does not explain the proteins. I used the lump of C-14 the size of Earth to illustrate how fast it decays. I'm well aware that new C-14 molecules are being made in the atmosphere but I don't see how C-14 molecules made in the atmosphere could contaminate one of the hardest materials on earth extremely deep in the Earth. "In this he does not take into account that if it's pressure was over 250 bars, and around 700 Celsius it would take tens to hundreds of millions of years. He does not check this but still tries to use it to prove a young earth." I don't see how this relates to diamonds. Vote Con Sources: 1.http://genetics.thetech.org... 2.http://www.icr.org... 3.http://creation.com... 4.http://creation.com... 5.The Holy Bible 6.http://creation.com... 7.http://www.britannica.com... 8.https://www.nichd.nih.gov...