Evolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical Creationism

I thank Con for her replies.OVERVIEWCon uses non-credible sources, particularly the ICR and CSI.ICR1. The ICR is overly biased. "The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist worldview. It rejects evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief." [1] The ICR has a reputation for asserting the Bible's accuracy, and then finding a way to interpret the facts to support that claim. Instead, what true scientific organizations do, is look at the facts, and then draw the conclusions. It is logically fallacious to come up with the conclusion first, as the ICR does, and then work backward to find support for their conclusion.2. The ICR's researchers have a lack of reliable scholarship and academic freedom, making their credentials seem sketchy. "In a 1995 review of work published by ICR researchers, Douglas J. Futuyma writes, 'Neither in the creationist literature nor in the scientific literature have I found any reference to professional research by these individuals in genetics, paleontology, taxonomy, anatomy, or any of the other fields most relevant to the study of evolution.' He found their work most often published instead by an overtly religious publishing house, Creation-Life Publishers." [1] "Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has criticized ICR for professing to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine." [1]CSIThe Creation Studies Institute has its own looney-tunes. It claims that "like the Nazis, gay-rights activists are using public schools to indoctrinate students...the Creationist Studies Institute claims that the 'gay agenda' has taken over schools because schools have 'fully embraced Darwinian Evolution.'" [2] I think the patent ridiculousness of this claim speaks for itself, underscoring both the bias and the tunnel-visioned blindness of the CSI.COMMON DESCENTSimilar BiochemistryCon offers an alternative explanation for the similarity of life's biochemistry, claiming that anything God developed would naturally be similar. Yet, the presupposes the existence of a God, and then works to interpret all arguments to support that presupposition. What instead should be done is too look at all the evidence and then derive conclusions, not the other way around as Con's ICR source does.The similarity in biochemistry strongly suggested that all life is genetically related. As I shall endeavor to show, in context with other evidence, the weight of the data would lead most rational people to the conclusion that there was a universal common ancestor, not that a single being created all life in 6 days.Vestigial StructuresHere Con cites a CSI source, which is inaccurate on several levels. Before I get into that, I would point out that Con only quoted a portion of the article in the debate, and ONLY that portion should be considered in this round. Anything else would constitute an attempt by Con to circumvent the character limit.Dr. Bergman, who is cited here, "has a doctorate in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a nonaccredited correspondence school that was ordered to cease operations in California in 1999 by the Marin County Superior Court. Bergman is a prolific writer with, according to Answers in Genesis, over 600 articles (none in peer-refereed scientific journals)." [3] Bergman's qualifications, particularly in that his school was nonaccredited and forced to close, as well as the lack of peer review in his articles, undermine his reliability as a source. His psychology credential certainly have no bearing on the science of evolution.Pro claims that no examples of vestigial organs exists. On the contrary, baline whales have hind leg bones that they no longer use, blind mole rats have eyes they no longer use, and, even in humans, the caecum is vestigial. [4]Clearly, a baline whale who is unable to use or control the bones that had formed its hind legs has not use for this structure. It is clearly derived from evolutionary ancestors (e.g. animals that used to walk on land), and provides evidence for evolution that, in conjunction with other clues, points more toward evolution than creationism.I would be interested to see if Con can proffer some evidence as to how a baline whale might use hind legs.Homologous StructuresCon offers a competing interpretation of the evidence without denying that homologous structures exist. Cons arguments are essentially that the "explanation for the fact that morphological similarities...exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs." But let's now take a look at my example.I evidenced last round that, "If a bat, a human, an alligator, and a penguin all evolved from a common ancestor, then they should share common anatomical traits. In fact, they do. Compare the forelimbs of the human, the bat, the penguin, and the alligator. Find the humerus, radius, ulna, and carpals in each forelimb. Though the limbs look strikingly different on the outside and though they vary in function, they are very similar in skeletal structure." I would call your attention to two things: (1) a bat, a human, an alligator, and a penguin do NOT have the same requirements of life, esp. as regards the homologous structures. A human hand is used for far different purposes than a bat's wing, and a penguin's wing is certainly used for different reasons than that of a bat's or of a human hand. Moreover, why would a penguin have wings when it might be better served by fish-like fins, unless of course the penguin evolved? So, the idea that some designs are preferred because they are superior to competing designs or because they serve like requirements is silly. (2) Note that my evidence shows that these homologous structures are used for different purposes, so not similar requirements of life.CURRENT EVOLUTIONCon says my examples are of mirco, not macro, evolution. The logical extension of my argument however is that micro evolution leads to macro evolution. Consider, if an organism, to use Con's words, undergoes a series of "small changes to adapt to surroundings" then it will eventually turn into a new species. If a mussel adapts a larger shell, then a better feeding mechanism, and then a way to taste bad to crabs, and so forth--all of these changes occurring on the micro level--it will eventually become a new species of mussel due to its dissimilarity with it's forbears. So, micro evolution, by logical extensions, affirms macro evolution.As for macro evolution, since it occurs over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, it cannot be observed in one lifetime...however, it can be observed in the sense that we can take remnants of dead animals and compare them to living ones, and draw conclusions from that analysis. PREEMPTSThermodynamicsIt is misinterpreted because the law has little to do with complexity, but rather with heat transference.Transitional FossilsBiased sources were used here as well; the ICR is not a credible academic institution, and so should not be treated as such. As for the claims about Transitional Fossils, as I explained re: micro evolution, we see fossils changing gradually over time. Some examples include [5]:- Tristychius - Proto-shark with broad-based fins- Paleospinax - More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines,- Protospinax - A very early shark/skatAs for Archaeopteryx, "Scientists who have since inspected the London Archaeopteryx and other specimens have concluded these fossils are not forgeries...The evidence that Archaeopteryx is not a fraud is so strong that creationist site Answers in Genesis suggests creationists don't use this argument." [6] I can expand on this evidence if need be.MutationsDue to character limits, I will address this next round. I don't consider this a new argument, but rather a new response. However, if Con objects, I shall withhold my replies. I would just say not it's less about new information as it is variation.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.rightwingwatch.org...3 - http://rationalwiki.org...4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - Source 7, R26 - http://www.conservapedia.com...Thanks! Over to Con!