There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

Thanks Pro. I'm surprised that Pro has taken so much time to analyze these studies in order to misrepresent them to fit what he wants them to say. I assure you that the PNAS published study called "Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations" IN FACT demonstrates advantageous mutations by their effect on fitness. Pro seems to ignore this constantly. Remember, it's not an inference that fitness has increased if the number of offspring with a mutation that make it to reproductive age increases...it's math. Maybe Pro should publish his analysis with PNAS...he should tell those researchers that they don't know how to count offspring that make it to reproductive age; he should tell those researchers that they just inferred those numbers. Pro said: "I maintain that the paper 1 does not provide evidence for mutation's ability to create novel structures" Then later Pro said: "The altered DNA could be considered a new structure...if a mutation occurs, then by definition a new DNA strand will exist...when Con writes that the altered DNA is "new" they are technically correct." My response: There it is. Pro agrees that altered DNA is a new structure, and on this subject, I am technically correct, so on the issue of new DNA being an example of a new structure, both Pro and Con agree; this study shows that novel structures were created by mutation, and it was with these novel genetic structures that THE NUMBER OF OFFSPRING THAT MADE IT TO REPRODUCTIVE AGE (fitness) INCREASED irrespective of inference. Pro agrees even more: "The authors did in fact measure the mutations" effects on fitness." My response: Again! Pro concedes that the authors MEASURED, not inferred, the effects of mutation on fitness. Given Pro's concession on this and the direct quote from the E. Coli study, "these experiments demonstrated that our method reliably identifies beneficial mutations with low and high fitness effects in growing E. coli cultures," there is in fact enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution, in E. Coli bacteria. Pro gets errant: "Mutations lead to genetic change that influence fitness. This is false. A change in code (genotype) only has an effect on fitness if there is a corresponding change in the physical features (phenotype) of the organism." My response: This was when I figured out that Pro is in fact neither a scientist, nor well-versed in biology, despite his overly-critical assessment of the paper. There is no rule in biology that says that only phenotype changes can have an effect of fitness. NONE. Germline mutations affect fitness in E. Coli bacteria, phenotype change or not, and Pro has not given us ANY reason to doubt that, in fact, Pro has conceded that mutations led to new genetic structures AND that this study measured the fitness of such. Pro, imagine a germline mutation that allows an organism to be reproductively viable, but has no discernible phenotypic change...only a genetic mutation that allows for the organism to be more reproductively compatible with other members of its species. This would increase fitness and there would be no observable phenotype change. Finally Pro gets errant again: "The specific focus of this debate...is to assess the evidence for mutation"s ability to create novel structures." My response: Nope. Nice try Pro. The resolution claims that there is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism, and makes no mention of novel structures...the novel structures thing is just Pro's unscientific way of determining mechanisms of evolution. Either way, novel structures were created by mutation in E. Coli, so Pro can no longer move the goalposts in this debate. I negate this particular resolution. Notice, I have not really needed to defend the other papers I provided, because Pro refuses to acknowledge them. They are however, evidence for mutation driving evolution, and Pro cannot find any more ways to misinterpret scientific findings published by PNAS. Also, I must remind everyone...MUTATION IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF GENETIC VARIABILITY, AND THIS IS A FACT OF BIOLOGY. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... Mutations-->fitness-->evolution. Pro?