Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

Alright, let's get started. The first issue you raised is that evolution is not able create enough diversity to create two different kinds out of a single one, because it cannot create new genetic information. It will get to that reasoning later on. First however I would like to point out that the example of cats and dogs you gave for this is unfitting. While cats and dogs are certainly different, the changes between them are almost all gradual. None of the differences actually need the introduction of new genetic information, but could easily happen through what you call microevolution over a long enough time. Shouldn't they be treated as a single kind because of that? The diversion between microevolution and macroevolution has almost no scientific backup. However, all of this doesn't matter if evolution is not able to create new genetic information. You claim that mutations will always result in genetic degradation and never in a beneficial result. This argument is flawed in several ways. First off, beneficial mutations are not just needed to create new information, but are also necessary for evolution in general. [1] Without beneficial mutations even your microevolution would not be possible. Secondly the statement is illogical in itself. Mutations are completely random. When the DNA multiplies some of the original information in it is lost and replaced by a random structure of molecules. I completely agree with you that the result is negative in most cases. The human body (or the body of any other animal) is a bit like a well-oiled machine. Almost everything has a specific function and if you randomly change something you will most likely mess it up. However, since the mutations are random there is always a small chance that the result might be positive. Based on the development of the Drosophila simulan fly scientists estimated that about 70% of all mutations are outright harmful. The rest is either ambivalent or beneficial.[2] The whole idea behind evolution is that the many negative mutations get rooted out through natural selection, while the very few animals with benefical mutations survive better. Therefore beneficial mutations will slowly spread over the colony even if they rarely happen in first place. Thirdly the creation of new beneficial genetic information has been observed and verified. In 2008 Professor Richard Lenski published the results of a 20 year experiment during which he observed the development of an E.coli strain. The idea behind the experiment was that the bacteria would be kept conditions not very well suited for them. They could survive, but not very well, and thus would be prompted to develop.The scientists estimated that over the course of the experiment more than 100,000,000 mutations occurred. Most of them couldn’t establish themselves and quickly disappeared again. However, less than 100 mutations per population established themselves with 10-20 of those being beneficial.[3] For example four of the twelve bacteria populations achieved the ability to repair small damage to their DNA, drastically increasing the rate of other non-harmful mutation happening in those stains. One population displayed something way more drastic though. The E.coli stain used for the experiment was generally not able to feed on citrate under oxygen rich conditions. While it was able to metabolize it, it could only get it through the cell wall under anaerobic conditions as the transport mechanism required a protein that is not produced in aerobic metabolism. When the scientists found traces of metabolized citrate in one of the colonies they first assumed it to be contaminated by other bacteria. However, it turned out that the E.coli had developed a new transport mechanism to survive better in the citrate rich surroundings. [4] This is a direct contradiction to your claims as: - The E.coli have a new ability that was not there before. - This ability is fundamentally different and requires the introduction of new genetic information. - The ability is beneficial. - It happened without the intervention of an intelligent designer. Another good example for beneficial evolution are multi-drug-resistant (MDR) germs. Those are bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites that have become resistant to common antibiotics and cures and thus create a huge risk.[5] There are multiple documented cases where a new stain from a known kind of germ suddenly has the ability to survive despite being exposed to substances normally lethal to them. Evolution gives a good answer as to why this happens. The only explanation in a creationistic world view would be that God is punishing innocents for the use of antibiotics by actively creating these stains. Are you sure this is what you want to say? The next argument you make is that living fossils pose a problem for evolution. This however is not the case. Evolution only works in a changed environment. If you leave an animal population in its established biome there will be next to no evolution, as it is already adapted to those surroundings. A different kind (next to) only emerges when the population is placed in a different environment that requires a different way of living. To support your argument you gave a quote from a paleontologist. You wrote: Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and an evolutionists recognizes this as a problem when he wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” [9] The link you provided under that reference is: [9] http://www.creationists.org...... However, that link never mentions a Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, does not contain the quote in question and is about a different topic. I suspect that you just missed out one reference there, as you have a second reference marked with [9] later on in the text. Please provide the real link in your next argument. Your next argument is based on supposed artifacts with images of dinosaurs. While this looks very convincing at first glance, it does much less so in proper context. The two stones on your photos are actually part of a bigger collection dubbed the ica stones.[6] The images on the stones don’t just contain dinosaurs, but also technical procedures and contraptions far ahead of their time. “On the stones are elaborate scenes depicting highly complex medical procedures, the use of telescopes and even vessels for flight.”[7] Even if the images on the stones were true, it would not prove dinosaurs coexisting with humans, as a society capable of performing heart transplantations and building flight apertures can also be assumed to know enough about archeology to reconstruct the images of dinosaurs without seeing a life exemplary. However, the stones are widely regarded as fake by the scientific community. The supposed finder of them even claimed to have faked them several times only to then refute that claim later on each time.[8] The soft tissue argument is a bit more controversial. Regarding the issue there are three statements, all made by qualified scientists: 1: Dinosaur bones with intact soft tissue can be found 2: Soft tissue cannot survive longer than 1.1 million years at 0°C and way less at higher temperatures. 2: Dinosaurs lived more than 65 million years ago (The tyrannosaur in question is dated at 68 million years) You are completely right when you say that there is a contradiction here. At least one of these statements must be false. The first one is out of question as it has been repeatedly verified. This does by no means mean that it's the third statement that is false. After all the idea that dinosaurs lived roughly between 235 and 65 million years ago is supported by lots of evidence, while the second statement is a single exapolation based on what is mostly speculation. However there is no scientific consensus regarding that topic yet. I hope that future research might shed some light on how organic material might survive that long. Now to your last argument regarding the lack of transitional forms. This is explained pretty easily. They are very rare because they are just that: transitional. After some time a specie’s evolution will always reach a somewhat stable state with little development: the species has found its niche. As you noticed yourself there are species that can live for millions of years with very little development. However, if you take the species out of their niece they will develop relatively fast to adapt to the new surroundings. Because of this the fossils from stable states will outnumber the ones from the transitionary phases by a few magnitudes. This does however not mean that fossils of transitionary forms do not exist. During my research for this round I have found a neat little list.[9] It has over 100 entries. The only problem with those is that when a new one is found, creationists either will try to explain it away, or say something akin to: "You say that this is the missing link between species 1 and 2, but in fact now we have two gaps: One between species 1 and 1.5, and one between 1.5 and 2. Go and find transitional forms for them." Since those arguments are almost impossible to defuse, people continue to claim that transitional species do not exist, even when objectively seen that is clearly not the case. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3]https://books.google.de... [4]http://myxo.css.msu.edu... [5]https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] at 0:54 [8]https://en.wikipedia.org... [9]http://rationalwiki.org...