Evolution: Pick One

Con's case, part 1Con's incredulity that we can construct a timeline for the deep past by present observations is just that: incredulity. It is no basis for an argument. I have explained that things that are not directly observable can nonetheless be inferred and established as scientific fact, such as atoms and red dwarfs in the Virgo A galaxy. Con has not refuted this.Preliminary ArgumentWith regard to proposition (2), Con states "(t)here is no way of knowing that both MiE and MaE use the same mechanism." That has nothing to do with proposition (2), which states the absence of a genetic barrier that prevents MiE changes from accumulating to macro scale. Nor does Con explain why the absence of such a barrier provides support to ID; indeed, such a barrier is often regarded as the "holy grail" of old earth creationists!Con states that I have shown no evidence for (3). Recall, however, that in my first statement I said that the measuring of lead isotope ratios pointed to an age of the Earth of about 4.55 billion years, and provided a source to a US Geological Survey article that explained how such measurements work and their results.[21] Con asks how new genes can come into existence. An explanation of the mechanisms involved is beyond the scope of this statement, but we have observed new genes coming into existence.[22][23] Con asks if MaE involves "species breeding with species," by which I assume he means with other species. The answer is no; MaE occurs when genetic populations change over time.In summary: Con accepts proposition (1). He has been unable to refute (2); we have never found a genetic barrier that prevents MiE changes from accumulating beyond a given extent. He has not disputed or even addressed the evidence for (3); he merely pretends I gave none. Thus, since all four propositions cannot be true, (4) must be false. MaE has occurred.Common Descent (and some final science)Con complains that the way science works, "anyone with any theory can justify himself as fact because his theory can not be tested nor disproved." (sic) This is contrary to what I have explained in my first two statements. A scientific theory is by definition testable; if a theory cannot be tested, then it can be disregarded. (Although Con does not have the burden to prove creationism or ID in this debate, it is worth noting that he has presented testable predictions for neither.) A theory becomes fact when it can be tested, has been tested, and has survived so many tests that to deny it is perverse.I have shown that CD can be tested, has been tested, and has survived enough tests to be established prima facie. Con continues to ignore most of the evidence that I have presented.He asserts that under MaE we would expect to see "live" transitional forms. Given that 99% of all species who have ever lived are now extinct, I don't see why MaE would predict this. However, to satisfy Con, I would point to the lungfish. It's a fish, and it has lungs. (And it can walk.)[24]Con suggests that the patterns in which we find fossils might have been caused by a flood. However, the fossil record is not sorted hydrologically; buoyant ammonites, for instance, are only found in lower strata, and dense turtles in upper strata. Creationism cannot explain the fossil patterns.Con suggests that, under MaE, we should find "billions" of transitional fossils. Fossilization, however, is extremely rare; consider, for instance, that passenger pigeons, once numbering in the billions, only went extinct 200 years ago; but you won't find their fossils anywhere. Fossilization only happens in habitats where preservation happens very quickly, such as tar pits and river deltas, and it requires the animal to be durable enough to preserve. Moreover, fossils are routinely destroyed by geological processes -- heat, pressure, erosion, etc. -- before they are ever discovered. Thus, if we did find "billions" of transitional fossils, geological science would be turned on its head!Con states that "(d)espite lots of money and effort (evolutionists) have yet to find a adequate fossil." However I mentioned one such fossil, Archaeopteryx, and Con did not find any inadequacy with that, nor with the other fossils mentioned in the source I provided for this argument.[25]Con states, "I.D. claims that only intelligent causes can adequately explain our information-rich biology in life and that these causes are detectable." But is this a scientific claim, or a statement of faith? More on this below.In any case, Con still does not address the evidence for CD that I presented in my first statement. Except for the jabs that I addressed above, he ignores transitional fossils. He completely ignores the inheritance of basic structures for replication, nested hierarchies, vestiges, and biogeographical distribution. The case for CD stands firm.Con's case, part 2With respect to the two arguments against MaE that Con presented, I pointed out that (a) MaE does not predict cross-taxa evolution among all current primitive life forms, (b) Con has not shown that such evolution never happens, and (c) Con has not shown that increases in complexity has never happened. This remains the case in Con's last statement. He accuses me of ignoring his first argument, but I have addressed it by showing that the first premise is false and the second is unsupported. In support of his second argument, he gives an example of an organism that has lost genetic material, but this is not the same as showing that life never gains complexity. Moreover, if by complexity Con simply means genetic material, then I have already shown that novel genetic material coming into existence has been directly observed.[26]Con complains that evolution does not explain what caused the Big Bang, why it "exploded" (in fact, it was an expansion), and how space and dimensions exist. These are cosmological questions. MaE is a biological theory, and has no obligation to explain things outside of its purview, any more than gravity must explain why nobody has green hair.Con states that ID "begins with empirical observations from our natural world." But that is only the first step of the scientific method, which I outlined above. The second and third steps are to form a hypothesis, and to make testable predictions based on that hypothesis. What testable predictions does ID make? Testability means potential falsification; if we found a mammalian fossil in the Precambrian strata, for instance, then Common Descent would be falsified. What yet-undiscovered fact about the world can we look at and say, "If we discover that this is wrong, then ID is falsified?" What will creationists accept as potential falsification? No answer is forthcoming.Con cites Paley's watchmaker argument, but does not explain how the existence of a "divine watchmaker" rules out the fact of MaE; indeed, most evolutionists in the US are theists! He states that the existence of God is logically possible, but neither science nor the readers of this debate are interested in what is merely logically possible, but in what is established by the evidence.ConclusionArguments: I have shown that MaE and CD are confirmed by the evidence. My arguments have been undamaged, and in the case of CD mostly untouched, by Con's efforts. Con has not come close to meeting his own burden of proof.Sources: Most of my sources have been scientific studies, while all of Con's sources have been websites; many of these were partisan websites such as CreationWiki or ARN.Spelling/Grammar: While I made a critical typo in my round 2 statement, this is an exception for me; Con has made far too many spelling and/or grammatical errors to ignore.Conduct: As of this statement, neither of us have committed a gross breach of conduct.I thank the readers for their attention. I thank ScottyDouglas for the debate, and hope that it will have proven educational for him.Sources: http://www.debate.org...