Evolution: The ramfications of multiple mutations And the necessity for Informatio.

My opponent brings up several new objections that are at best unpersuasive, and at their worst completely irrelevant. Before I address these, I'd like to make note of something. PRO has lifted large sections of his essay from this page: http://answersingenesis.org... Additionally, in a rather transparent effort to build ethos for his case, he copied every single reference from the article without so much as bothering to change the order or include numbered citations within his essay. Needless to say, I don't find this amusing and I don't think the voters will either. ========= REBUTTALS ========= Since my opponent has only one major contention divided into other, minor points, I'll address them each individually. ---> "The mutation [must] enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly." This is not true. Many mutations are neutral, neither aiding nor hindering survival. These spread through populations by genetic drift.[1] While useless in and of themselves, when combined with other mutations, they may have a positive effect. I'll expand on this later. ---> "Having nerves STILL requires other factors to be of use..." Obviously. In explaining the devleopment of limbs, the animal in question is assumed already to have some basic nervous system in place. These pre-esxisting structures can easily be adapted for other purposes. If my opponent wishes for me to explain in minute detail ever single step in the evolutionary process from single celled microogranism to complex vertebrate, I'm afraid I must disappoint him; it is simply impossible within the confines of 8,000 characters. Moreover, it would add nothing to the debate, I have already demonstrated that the argument from irreducible complexity is wholly unscientific. Finally, my opponent has not given any coherent, logical reason to believe why a nervous system *couldn't* have evolved by gradual increments in a naturalistic fashion. What is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ---> "If one reptilian (sic) have (sic) mammary glands that produce the necessary 'food' through a mutation, he will not be able to pass on this characteristic, unless it had very precise survival goals." I already explained the precise survival goal that early mamary glands may have served. I suggest my opponent re-read my argument. Moreover, as I explained earlier, even if mammary glands conferred no survival advantage, there is no reason to suppose they wouldn't be passed on through neutral evolution, or genetic drift. ---> "The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014." To begin with, 107^2 is most assuredly *not* 1014, but 11,449. More importantly, this statistic is ridiculous and completely irrelevant. Obviously, the odds of having three simulataneous complementary mutations are slim, but this is not how evolution works. This argument relies on several absurd assumptions: 1. - Mutations must be beneficial to be passed on This is absolutely false. Many mutations on their own produce no noticeable difference in an organism, however when paired with other mutations, they may cause drastic changes. These mutations do not not need to to be beneficial to be passed on, they can spread through a population by genetic drift. In some instances, organisms possessing favorable traits may even have mutations that hinder them, but by "hitch hiking" on the organism's good genes, these mutations can be passed on anyway. 1. - Mutations must occur sequentially or simultaneously Again false. As I explained earlier, even mutations coferring no survival advantage can still spread through a population. Once a certain mutation becomes common, the odds of a complementary mutation occurring increase exponentially. 3. - Assumes that only one mutation occurs per generation Off these three assumptions, this is perhaps the most baffling. An organism may have several mutations. Even if a majority of these mutations have no complementary mutations, a small number of them very well could. A simpler example of how this works is the birthday paradox. In a room containing 23 people, the odds are slightly better than 50-50 that two of them will share a birthday. But if that were the case, doesn't it seem like you should meet more people who share your birthday? Not neccessarily. The odds of someone sharing YOUR birthday are much lower because it has to be on a SPECIFIC day. In a group of 23, the odds of any two people sharing a birthday are much higher because the match can occur on ANY day.[2] This works the same way with mutations. While the chances of any one mutation having a complementary mutation are slim, given multiple mutations and multiple generations, the odds suddenly don't look so daunting. ---> "Drug resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution." I'm not sure why my opponent brought this up, since I never mentioned anything about it. The emergence of drug resistant bacteria is indeed evolution. New information is created by mutations in the genome. There is strong lab evidence of this.[3] ========= CASE PRO ========= C1 - Vestigial Structures CON has apparently dropped this argument, therefore PRO should win by default. C2 - Ovserved Instances of Speciation My opponent writes: "you will forgive me if I do not see the link...as no mutation of some sort are (sic) involved." Of course mutations were involved! How else would copper resistance and reproductive isolation occur? == CONCLUSION == My opponent's main objection involves ridiculously inflated statistics from an unreliable source. My main points remain virtually uncontested. I look forward to my opponent taking the time to write *his own* response in the next round. The resolution is AFFIRMED. -- References -- 1. Suzuki, et al. "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis." 4th ed. W.H. Freeman. p. 704. 1989 2. http://discovermagazine.com... 3. http://www.newscientist.com...