Evolution Is Not Proven

Many of pro's rebuttals were semantics so I will focus only on the ones that aren't semantics. To excuse the lack of expected transitions, Con assumes that “conditions required to form fossils are incredibly rare; were [sic] luck [sic] the fossil record is as good as it is.” This is just an excuse made without evidence, and does nothing to prove the certainty of Evolution (as defined previously). Actually the conditions for fossils to form are rare and there is evidence of this. The reason is because for a fossil to form the dead animal has to be:1. in an environment that has no oxygen.2. The environment has to be free from scavengers.Most animals when they died weren't in an oxygen free environment or an environment free of scavengers.Even the Smithsonian says that: "Although well-preserved soft-bodied fossils have been found throughout the fossil record, they are rare occurrences and are preserved only under very unusual environmental conditions."That also gives reason for the "underepresented" precambrian life. I know right! And that is the problem right there: virtually nothing before the cambrian has shells. Unless you want to argue that mutations and Natural Selection can produce complex creatures with intricate shells in a single generation from bacteria, this lack of plausible, shelled ancestors poses a huge problem. This problem needs to be overcome if Evolution (as previously defined) is going to be proven. There's a reason for that; a geochemical change in ocean compostion. There's evidence that around the time of "cambrian explosion" the chemistry of the ocean changed; as in there was A LOT more calcium. The genes were already there but the raw materials weren't. Also that single generation from bacteria comment is completely misleading; there WERE multicellular organisms before the cambrian. As I already demonstrated, this is not a valid argument for excusing the fact that not a single transitional between bacteria and that mollusk has been found. A bacterium did not suddenly give birth to a fully shelled mollusk. That's not how mutation and Natural Selection work. Neither did a sponge, nor a tiny worm give birth to a mollusk. Millions of transitional organisms should have existed to bridge the evolutionary chasm between bacteria and mollusks (were Evolution, as previously defined, true) but not even one has been found. My reason is perfectly valid; as the smithsonian said in the quote above; soft bodied creatures only fossilize in extremely unusual environmental conditions as in VERY RARE. Saying that bacteria are too small and soft to be commonly fossilized is not a sufficient argument. Not all transitionals between bacteria (no shell) and mollusks (big, intricate shell) would have been soft, or even small. In fact, there would have been millions of transitionals with large, hard parts. Nope THAT'S an proven and completely false assumption. As I stated above there's evidence that the ocean chemistry wasn't right for the formation of shells UNTIL the cambrian. I agree, gaps in the fossil record are to be expected, but not chasms. Are you telling me that the absence of any transitionals between bacteria and mollusks is to be expected, even though mutation and Natural Selection require millions of generations to accomplish such a feat? Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Have you ever heard of the long term E. Coli evolution experiment? Well that's been going on for 26 years and evolution has already been observed; the E. Coli went from being unable to metabolize citric acid and dying in that environment to being able to metabolize citric acid and thrive in the environment. To put that into perspective the change in the bacteria is like a human evolving the ability to eat sulphuric acid and even thrive in it. That's 50,000 generations; unless you're getting a sample of the bacteria every few years you're not going to be finding transitional fossils of them. Con's extremely simplistic rebuttal is not sufficient. It doesn't even make sense. Punctuated Equilibrium doesn'texplain the sudden emergence of 10 major phylum, and has no relevance. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a sufficient explanation; however I will go into more detail. 1. a period of frequent volcanic eruptions increases calcium concentrations in ocean water. 2. some animals are able to use that calcium to form shells. 3. Those organisms with shells were better protected from predators. 4. A kind of evolutionary "arms race" took place between predators and prey causing the rapid diversification of life. This explanation is supported by evidence and can explain the emergence of 10 major phylum of 70-80 million years. Now for the evidence for evolution: experimental evidence including the long term E. Coli experiment mentioned aboved. Another evolution experiment as done in the 1800s. Here's a description: "One of the first to carry out a controlled evolution experiment was William Dallinger. In the late 19th century, he cultivated small unicellular organisms in a custom-built incubator over a time period of seven years (1880–1886). Dallinger slowly increased the temperature of the incubator from an initial 60 °F up to 158 °F. The early cultures had shown clear signs of distress at a temperature of 73 °F, and were certainly not capable of surviving at 158 °F. The organisms Dallinger had in his incubator at the end of the experiment, on the other hand, were perfectly fine at 158 °F. However, these organisms would no longer grow at the initial 60 °F. Dallinger concluded that he had found evidence for Darwinian adaptation in his incubator, and that the organisms had adapted to live in a high-temperature environment. Unfortunately, Dallinger's incubator was accidentally destroyed in 1886, and Dallinger could not continue this line of research"--wikipedia Since many people claim those are not valid evidence because of the difference between a single cell and a multicellular organism here's an example with mice: "In 1998, Theodore Garland, Jr. and colleagues started a long-term experiment that involves selective breeding for high voluntary activity levels on running wheels.[7] This experiment also continues to this day (> 65 generations). Mice from the four replicate "High Runner" lines evolved to run almost 3 times as many running-wheel revolutions per day as compared with the four unselected control lines of mice, mainly by running faster than the control mice rather than running for more minutes/day. The HR mice exhibit an elevated maximal aerobic capacity when tested on a motorized treadmill and a variety of other traits that appear to be adaptations that facilitate high levels of sustained endurance running (e.g., larger hearts, more symmetrical hindlimb bones). They also exhibit alterations in motivation and the reward system of the brain. Pharmacological studies point to alterations in dopamine function and the endocannabinoid system.[8] The High Runner lines have been proposed as a model to study human attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and administration of Ritalin reduces their wheel running approximately to the levels of Control mice."--wikipedia So there is experimental evidence for evolution contrary to what deniers will tell you.