Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Thanks, Pro.Burden of ProofMy opponent argues that I am responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. This is incorrect. As my opponent's own source states, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." As it is my opponent, not myself, who is asserting a claim in this debate (this claim can be found in the debate resolution- "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts") it is my opponent who will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. As such, if he wants to win this debate, he needs to provide some sort of justification to support his asserted claim that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". Until he is able to provide such justification, he cannot win the debate.https://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttal"I didn't say there was no mutation. I said there hasn't been any additive mutations observed."But there have been additive mutations observed- several of them: changes in bone density, malaria resistance, and lactose tolerance are just a few that immediately come to mind.http://www.pnas.org...http://www.nature.com...http://www.nature.com..."I provided references to scientific articles that include facts that back up my position."Nonsense. Referencing creationist pseudoscience does not equate to providing "references to scientific articles that include facts" by any stretch of the imagination. If you mean for your position to be taken seriously, then you ought to provide academic support for your assertions. Using creationist websites to argue in favor of creationism is circular reasoning at its finest."The Con goes on to provide links to easily refuted websites that are known to discriminate against people with alternative views"This is ironic, as each of my sources are academic references whereas each of my opponent's sources are biased creationist websites."The first link leads to a page not found error."My apologies. Here is the correct link, along with the others I provided:http://isites.harvard.edu...http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...http://adsabs.harvard.edu...http://earth.geology.yale.edu...https://www.princeton.edu...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://abyss.uoregon.edu...http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu..."The second link is the geological time scale. This one is easily refuted."If the geological time scale (which is universally accepted) is so easily refuted, then I'm sure it's quite easy to find unbiased sources which refute it? If this is the case, I kindly ask that my opponent provide these unbiased sources. If not, then I see no reason at all to think that the geological time scale is "easily refuted" as my opponent claims."Unfortunately if we use the uniformitarian idea the electromagnetic field of the earth would have fried all life 10,000 years ago."I suppose this will just have to be a case of which sources (mine or my opponent's) are more credible. I'll let the readers make that decision.http://abyss.uoregon.edu...http://www.indiana.edu...http://evolution.berkeley.edu..."The fourth and fifth articles rest on the assumption that radiometric dating is accurate. I've already discussed the many ways that radiometric dating is innacurate."Again, I'll let the readers judge the credibility of the sources provided for themselves here.http://www.asa3.org... 19http://www.kgs.ku.edu...http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov..."You frame your argument against all mutations when I am talking about a subset of mutations known as additive mutations, which add new genetic data that wasn't previously there."I don't think my opponent understands that mutations (not just additive mutations, but all mutations) are by definition changes in genes. My opponent claims that he is specifically targeting "additive mutations, which add new genetic data that wasn't previously there", but the fact of the matter is all mutations change genetic data (so that it differs from what was previously found)."I freely admit that neutral and harmful mutations happen, however that would actually disprove evolution"Well that's laughable. Neutral and harmful mutations don't come anywhere close to "disproving evolution". Does my opponent not know that these mutations are random? Does he expect (if evolution is true) each and every random mutation to be beneficial? What reason does he have for thinking that?"(1) The genes are for complex organ functions which would not be needed and would have been selected against in less complex ancestors (which didn't exist).(2) Convergent evolution doesn't explain exact DNA matches across different trees."(1) It's very bold to claim to know which traits could and could not have been passed down via natural selection, especially given changing environments, resource availability, etc. (2) That is, in fact, exactly what convergent evolution explains. That's the very point of convergent evolution.SummaryMy opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof. He has not succeeded in providing any sort of justification for his assertion that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". My opponent clearly uses circular reasoning; arguing for a creationist position by appealing to creationist sources which are universally rejected. Until we are provided with unbiased "scientific facts" to show that "evolution has been proved false", we can reasonably conclude that my opponent has failed to show his assertion made in the debate resolution to be true.SourcesAgain, I ask readers to consider the credibility of both my opponent's sources and my own sources. Please note that each of my opponent's sources that he uses to reference support for his positions come from biased creationist websites, whereas each of my sources are academic. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.pnas.org...http://www.nature.com...http://www.nature.com...http://isites.harvard.edu...http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...http://adsabs.harvard.edu...http://earth.geology.yale.edu...https://www.princeton.edu...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://abyss.uoregon.edu...http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...http://www.indiana.edu...http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.kgs.ku.edu...http://www.asa3.org... 19