Creationism(Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

The Orchard of Life:Concerning your questions:1. This shouldn't really be a question of Con is familiar with the Genesis account. The kinds were created during the seven days of creation according to biblical doctorine.2. I believe you misunderstand me. The speciation within the original kinds is consistant with the bibical account. However you can't have the kinds intermingling with each other.3. Because there is no objective evidence that supports the theory that all organisms stem from a single-celled organism.4. They are different in the aspect that you can't have the kinds undergo sexual intercourse and produce viable offspring.5. I'm not necessarily sure as to what you are trying to ask or convey with this question.6. The Bible was written by someone who was there at the very beginning God himself. However, a debating about the existance of God isn't the direction of this debate.7. It is because the biblical orchard is more consistant with what is observed today as you don't see dogs and cats having sex and producing viable offspring or elephants doing it with birds.8. (Answer to Question 1)As I am emphasizing in this debate, the main issue is not how much change speciation can do but rather that speciation is producing the wrong kind of change on the genetic level for evolution to happen. My response to your response:Natural selection isn't a creative process, but rather a destructive one. Let me illustrate. You have two variations of dogs living in the same environment, one short-fur and one long-fur. The Ice Age comes along and the short-fur variation dies off due to hypothermia. The long-fur variation lives however the genotype for short-hair would be forever lost. Given enough time, this process will eventually eliminate all genotypes to the point where you can't have a viable species anymore. Genetics:Deleterious is defined as:"damaging or harmful" [1]Mutations are deleterious due to the fact that they damage or harm functional genes in the genome. There is plenty reason to believe that the destructive trend in the human genome to other organisms. Allow me again to illustrate with a simple analogy:You have two students that have the task of copying and transcribing two different essays (analogous to reproduction). Both papers are in English (All organisms genomes are composed of the same or similar nucleotides) One is tasked with a simple five-paragraph essay and one is tasked with a peer-reviewed scientific paper (to illustrate varying complexities of different organisms). As the two students are imperfect human beings they are bound to make mistakes (much like how mutations happen during reproduction). Even though both students are working on different papers regarding different topics, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that over an indefinite amount of time, the spelling and grammar mistakes are going to accumulate in both papers distorting and damaging the orgininal information.As seen in this analogy, although the magnitude of the changes in the genome may vary, there is reason to believe the overall trend between humans and non-organisms are similar or the same."mutations can produce beneficial, new genetic information."Other than polyploidy which I have proven is deleterous to the overall genome, Con has not provided any specific mutations that back this claim.Living Fossils:Despite environmental conditions, mutations still happen. If beneficial, information-gaining mutations exist as Con asserts, then there is no reason why they should remain the same. Meanwhile, within the horseshoe crab's time on Earth, dinosaurs became birds and wolf-like creatures became whales which means that its predators and prey would also be evolving. Tell any believer in old-age Earth that the environment hadn't changed much at all and he/she would call you crazy. Let’s take a look at a few mass extinctions that happened during the horseshoe crab's existance. The most well-known one that killed the dinosaurs was a giant meteor that smashed the Earth, spilling large amounts of dust that blocks the sun sending the Earth into a deep-freeze. Living fossils that lived during that time, such as crocodiles and the Cycad plants would have had to evolve drastically to survive or face extinction. Then evolve again when the dust settled and the green house gases trapped heat, skyrocketing temperatures even past what was normal during the time of the dinosaurs. In addition, oceanic ecosystems can be heavily affected by mass extinctions. For example, the Cambrian–Ordovician extinction events consisted of a rapid depletion in oxygen in the ocean. Or even look at today where human pollution of the oceans has resulted in many species going extinct, enough to technically count as part of a mass extinciton. How would the coral reef dwelling Nautilus mollusk survive without evolving? [12] [2] Sources:I apoligize for the broken links as I will post alternative working links below. However, Con seems dishonest to claim that with the broken links it is impossible to verify the my claims as a simple Google search could do it. [12] http://news.discovery.com...[13] I'm going to discard the source as it is just for a quote from Dr. Stephan Jay Gould and doesn't really contribute much to the argument.[14] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...[15] http://news.sciencemag.org...Human facial muscles:However, there are many facial muscles that humans have and primates don't: [3] The main problem with the conclusion made in the study is the what I've pointed out in my rebuttal, the difference between observation and historical science. Have such facial muscles been observed evolving in a lab?Con also ignores the othe problem that in order to use these muscles in a coordinated fashion, the organism would also need to have a brain hard-wired to use them on top of interpreting facial expressions. Con also ignores the problem that the ability to smile or frown even with the imbeded brain functions do not provide a distinct advantage that nature will select. Polyploidy:In that example it is clear that the extra copies of the words distort the information instead of add new information. Do you claim that duplicating the phrase "The cat" would add information versus if I add "jumps over the dog." to the phrase? I don't usually look at sources other than to check to make sure it's reliable and that he/she takes the information within context. The reason is because anyone can take a link and use it as an argument. However, more effort and thought is required to take information from the source and use it and strengthen their arguments. If you thought that the link makes a good point about a topic, you should have explained and summerized it in the debate.A larger cell doesn't necessarily mean that it is more functional than its smaller counterparts. And a larger cell isn't necessarily due to the increase of information in the genome. You haven't explained how the the # of chromosomes is the cause of the larger cell size.Human Chromosome 2:I don't see how Con's response is any different. You have the supposed start, the supposed end result, and somehow that proves that the specific process between them happened. If the runner had a camara on the entire time, then it is objective certification that he/she ran the marathon. However, was there anybody constantly documenting the state of ape/human chromosomes over the supposed millions of years the process supposedly took place? The answer is no.Con also failed to address the fact that the idea of the two chromosomes fusing together makes predictions about the current human chromosome 2 which contradicts with current empirical data which I stated in Round 3. Take the marathon runner for instance. Anyone who runs a marathon are expected to be fatigued and sweaty. However, the marathon runner at the finsih line seems fresh and dry.Genetic and Physical Similarities:Here is a challenge to Con:How was the scientific method used to make the conclusion that these structures and genes came from a common ancestor?The quotes that I used wasn't exactly an appeal to authority as I just used them to illustrate that creationists aren't the only one making the distinction between historical and observational science. The taxonomic system is irrelevant to my arguments as I have been arguing that speciation on the genetic level produces the wrong kind of change for evolution to happen. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] See Round 2, Source 18