Creationism(Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Wow, so there are some interesting things that have been discussed and ignored in this debate. 1. Negating is not affirming. Someone reading this debate may remember our discussion of natural selection, speciation, mutations, polyploidy, evolutionary fossils, and genetic divergence; these are all concepts of evolution which were addressed by both Pro and Con. What would someone reading this debate remember about Creationsim? Nothing. What creationism concepts have been clearly explained? None. Not because there isn't any existing information on creationism, but ALL of Pro's characters are spent on refuting evolution RATHER than proving or explaining creationism. For example, anyone who read this debate could tell you that natural selection, mutation, and speciation are three of the mechanisms of evolution (how evolution works), and that homologous fossils and homologous genetics are strong evidence for evolution. What about the mechanisms of creationism? Seriously, try to name one from this debate. What about the evidence for creationism? Go ahead, find the evidence FOR creationism in this debate. Pro squandered all of his rounds simply refuting evolution, and neglected his central burden...the burden of demonstrating creationism's plausibility. Simply refuting evolution does not affirm creationism's plausibility. Like if I were to be Pro in a debate about Black Magic (Pro) VS Chemotherapy (Con), with the full resolution being that Black Magic is a more valid treatment of cancer than Chemotherapy is, simply refuting chemotherapy does not default to an affirmation of black magic's plausibility...in fact I would need to provide a mechanism and supporting evidence for Black Magic's role in cancer treatment in order to demonstrate the plausibility of black magic treating cancer.. This is the case with this debate, as Pro has only attacked evolution and has NOT ONCE provided or explained any mechanism of or evidence for creationism...not once. This debate's resolution is NOT "Is evolution plausible?" This debate's resolution is inherently a comparison between two specific explanations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and only one explanation was discussed...this is a major neglect by Pro. 2. What is a kind? For the life of me, I still can't figure out what the term "kind" refers to, and, when I asked, in the 2nd round, if Pro could explain what "kind" means in terms of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, or domain, Pro responded with: "Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool." My response: Well, given that ALL organisms descended from a common ancestor, according to Pro, all organisms are the same kind. This definition provides no reference point to discern ancestral gene pools, leaving it unclear as to where we draw the line for "kind." Without a demonstration or example of different gene pools beyond assertions, this definition is useless. Also, without choosing species, genus, family, etc., we are largely left in the dark on any real world application of such a term as "kind." Are whales and bears the same kind? Because they both come from the same ancestral gene pool. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. Polyploidy = mutations that increase the amount of functional genetic information. Pro clearly stated, "I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes." So, when I showed polyploidy (a literal increase in genetic information by way of duplicated gene sets) in bacteria, plants, and animals, Pro refutes with an annoying example where they simply repeat words of a statement and a question. Remember, the claim was that mutations cannot INCREASE genetic information, and Pro's repetition, though annoying, is still an INCREASE in information because there are literally more words than if Pro had not annoyingly repeated everything. Pro concedes this point: "To be fair, the repetition does sort of improve the argument." My response: Yep, just like polyploidy can improve a species. 4. Speciation by way of natural selection is a fact and a crucial mechanism of evolution; speciation in and of itself is an example of biodiversity and an example of biological evolution. Pro conceded this point, in round 2, "I can agree that natural selection occurs and can create new species," which affirms that evolution by way of natural selection is a fact and that natural selection does not "work against evolution,' because Pro agrees that viable species are a result of speciation; by creating new successful reproductive communities (species), natural selection actually works FOR evolution and the diversification of organisms and Pro agrees. I will entertain Pro's analogy for how he can affirm speciation, but not evolution: "We are at the Chicago stop on a New York ---- San Francisco train line. We both agree that the train is working, only that you argue that because the train is working, it is heading towards New York, whereas I"m arguing that the train is going in the wrong direction to San Francisco." My response: Agreeing that species themselves can create new species is agreeing that the train is working and has already reached New York on this particular train line. To me, arriving in New York would be the successful creation of a new species (biodiversity), and Pro claims this happens under evolution's most crucial mechanism, natural selection. I think most voters can just vote Con here, because Pro says that diverse species can arise by natural selection and this gives us no reason to think it's headed in the wrong direction given the reproductive success of new diverse species. 5. Why should we consider what the bible says to be authoritative on matters of the origins and the diversification of species? I asked pro this question and here's his response: "The Bible was written by someone who was there at the very beginning God himself." That's it. My response: This is a bare assertion that does not address why the bible should be considered authoritative on matters of biodiversity; this offers no proof that god wrote the book, was there at "the beginning," and shows no link to biodiversity. 6. Why hasn't speciation occurred prior to the orchard of life? I asked Pro this question and he responded: "The kinds were created during the seven days of creation according to biblical doctorine." My response: Yet another bare assertion, for which Pro provided no source, that fails to address Pro's arbitrary limit on speciation, and again assumes the bible's authoritativeness on matters of biodiversity without explanation. 7. Contradiction! Pro said: "Speciation is producing the wrong kind of change on the genetic level for evolution to happen." My response: Speciation is evolution happening...this is a massive contradiction by Pro. Pro is saying that they agree that viable species arise from other species by way of natural selection, but that this is the wrong kind of change. To me, if it were the wrong kind of change, the successful reproductive community (new species) would not arise. Either way, speciation is evolution and this is a crucial concession by Pro. Pro expands his contradiction: "Natural selection isn't a creative process..." My response: Except for when it creates new species, right, Pro? Seriously, how is this not a contradiction to Pro accepting speciation by way of natural selection? 8. Mutations. Pro: "There is plenty reason to believe that the destructive trend in the human genome [happens] to other organisms." Me: Then provide those reasons instead of a poorly crafted analogy. So, even though humans are multi-cellular and have membrane-bound nuclei, the exact same destructive genetic trend occurs in organisms with single cells, and membrane-less nuclei? Pro never explains why human genome destruction is equivalent to organisms that are vastly different than humans other than claiming that errors between a five paragraph essay and a peer reviewed scientific paper are the same. What's the problem? Both a peer reviewed paper and a 5 paragraph essay are made of the same cells, so error similarity might make sense. The difference between say a plant and a human is that they are made of vastly different cells, determined by their genes, so assuming genetic errors in a membrane-bound nucleus to be the same as errors in a cell without a membrane-bound nucleus is incongruous to two same-celled papers. 9. Living fossils. Pro used the horseshoe crab as an example of evolution not occurring because one would expect many changes over that much time. I responded by saying if there's not much change in environmental constraints, or a species has already been successful in adapting to said constraints, not much change may occur. According to the NCBI, specifically on the horseshoe crab' living fossilness. "A high effectiveness of adaptation significantly reduces the need for differentiated phenotypic variants in response to environmental changes and provides for long-term evolutionary success." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 10. Human chromosome 2. Pro: "Was there anybody constantly documenting the state of ape/human chromosomes over the supposed millions of years the process supposedly took place?" Me: Well, it wasn't someone, it was chromosomes. Pro never addresses the uniqueness of ape chromosomes and their appearance on our 2nd chromosome. Like if you were to find a fingerprint on a gun that EXACTLY matches known fingerprints of a suspected criminal, you could conclude, plausibly that the gun was handled by that unique criminal. Now, Pro's challenge. "How was the scientific method used to make the conclusion that these structures and genes came from a common ancestor?" Me: http://evolution.berkeley.edu... I already provided this, and I affirm evolution.