Evolution

Thanks to con for responding! :) Claim 1. Warm blooded birds, cold blooded dinosMany reptiles do have partial homeothermy: They do control their body heat, just not as strictly as birds and mammals and with allowed variation. (http://www.talkorigins.org...) This shows that homeothermy is not necessarily indicative of irreducible complexity.Claim 2. LungsAlligators and other such reptiles also have unidirectional air flows and air sacs, meaning that con's claim is flawed. Modern day reptiles such as alligators do have unidirection air flow in their lungs. (http://svpow.com...) The diaphragm is a minor difference that may be caused by a mutation. Claim 3. Feathers Con claims that the alleged feathers are actually just collagen filaments. However, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, such as the Archaeopteryx. Creationists have said that the Achaeopteryx was fully bird as it had feathers and wings. Little did they know that this claim would backfire as there were many characteristics indicating that it was half dinosaur, proving that protofeathers did exist. (http://www.talkorigins.org...) Con's dropped arguments: Con has failed to adequately respond to my points that: 1. There is a complete set of transitional fossils documenting how the mammalian jaw and earbone evolved from the reptillian jaw and earbone. 2. The nearly gap-free timeline for human evolution with complete fossils 3. The lack of any morphological gaps between dinosaurs and birds and the completeness of the entire strand of transitional fossils with very few missing links 4. The fact that evolutionists were skeptical of Nebraska man Macroevolution Macro evolution would be when one kind of animal evolved into a new kind which in most cases requires the addition of genetic information. There is no process of mutation that adds genetic information. To even think that genetic information can be added through any process is ludicrous! Con states that macroevolution is evolution between "kinds", and states that evolution between "kinds" requires addition of genetic information, which is "impossible". 1. There is no scientific definition for a "kind". This seems similar to baraminology, which seeks to allow for speciation while keeping barriers between "kinds". However, baraminology puts arbitary borders between kinds witut any scientific evidence: the grouping of organisms into kinds is arbitary and relies on personal opinion by stating that while all animals which can interbreed are of the same kind, those which can't can also be of the same kind. This leaves a lot of room for arbitary classifications. (http://rationalwiki.org...) 2. There is a way for new genetic information to appear. We have observed instances of: 1.increased genetic variety in a population 2.increased genetic material 3.novel genetic material 4.novel genetically-regulated abilities(http://www.talkorigins.org...) While all of the other instances of increased information look like a win for evolutionists, number 2 in the above list is just gene duplication. You might be saying "how is gene duplication new information?" Well, gene duplication duplicates a gene, then a mutation causes neofunctionalization: a mutation makes the duplicated gene have a function different from the original. This has been seen in ice fish, where gene duplication turned into a positive mutation due to neofunctionalization, meaning that the ice fish genome acquired new genetic information. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) 1, 3, and 4 are self-explanatary: information created through mutations. "If so many transitional fossils have been found name one watertight missing link. " What is watertight? As stated above, I have given an entire timeline of human evolution without missing links, and how the mammal jaw evolved from the reptillian one step-by-step. The Archaeopteryx is a watertight missing link, as it has feathers and wings as creationists agree, but it also has several morphological features that show it is a dinosaur transitional fossil. ((http://www.talkorigins.org...)) Side noteI have shown 2 sources that are not talk.origins supporting evolution.