There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

Thanks for that, Pro. I maintain that the studies that I have presented have not only allowed me to meet my burden, but have negated the resolution, and this affirms that there IS, in fact, enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution; the evidence can be found in this debate, in my round 1 and 2. Pro has issues with my studies: "The authors of the [E. Coli study] do state that novel advantageous mutations occurred. However they didn't go into any detail as to what form these mutations took..." My response: Let's be clear that Pro is in fact conceding that the study shows novel advantageous mutations, a requirement for Con from round 1. The study did go into detail about the form the mutations took: "Because of the high mutation rates of cloned microsatellites, all populations had already accumulated substantial variability after 90 generations. Analysis of the bacterial culture in subsequent generations allowed us to follow the shifts in allele frequency at the cloned microsatellite locus..." The mutations took the form of genetic variability, that is to say, genetic structures that were not there before mutation had appeared after mutation, and these mutations created measurable variability within DNA strands; this is the form the mutations took. Pro, why don't you regard new DNA strands as the "form these mutations took?" To me, variations in genetics are new genetic forms that mutations can take. Pro continues: "The reason I think the authors inferred beneficial mutations rather than directly observed them was because their method 'tracking the allele frequencies of injected microsatellites' did not involve actual analysis of the beneficial mutations." My response: Pro, please listen. Beneficial mutations are mutations that lead to FITNESS. Fitness is measured by the number of offspring that make it to reproductive age. The E. Coli study that you don't find to be proof of mutations driving evolution CLEARLY STATES: "these experiments demonstrated that our method reliably identifies beneficial mutations with low and high fitness effects in growing E. coli cultures." The authors DID actually analyze the mutations' effect on FITNESS, which is an analyzable measurement of benefit, because one can count offspring that make it to reproductive age. So, Pro teaches us how to describe a mutation and its benefit: 1. "the exact change in the DNA code" *The study clearly states, "a plasmid vector (pBR322)" which exhibited allele frequency variations from mutations. 2. "what category of mutation that occurred (insertion, deletion, transpositional)" *The study wasn't attempting to find HOW these mutations occurred. The mutations occurred, and the study attempted to show their effects on fitness, not how the mutations occurred. This study focused on WHAT the effects of the mutations, regardless of category, on E. Coli genetic variation are...insertion, deletion, and transposition could all be culprits for the types of mutations that occurred, but whether or not these mutations lead to fitness was the intent of the study. 3. "the phenotypic alteration that resulted from it." *Not all mutations lead to an observable phenotypic change. These mutations however, lead to genetic change that influenced fitness within E. Coli; one can explain the benefits of a mutation WITHOUT any observable phenotypic change. Pro goes on: "None of those details were provided in this paper, which leads me to believe they were never determined." My response: No, Pro's first detail WAS provided in the studies, and Pro's other 2 details were merely assumptions that Pro made about mutations and benefit; the category of mutation was irrelevant to the mutations' benefit on fitness, and so was phenotypic alteration. Pro continues to ignore the analyzable measurement of fitness: "Because analysis of the mutations was not given I cannot gauge whether or not novel structures were created." My response: Pro, did the authors of the study provide an ANALYSIS OF FITNESS? If yes, then they DID analyze the beneficial effects of mutation on E. Coli. Pro, were new DNA strands created from the mutations? If yes, then "novel structures were created," because DNA strands are structures themselves. Pro, did these mutated DNA strands lead to increased fitness? If yes, then this is CLEAR evidence that mutations drove evolution in E. Coli. Pro adds: "A novel mutation simply means a change in the genome that hasn't occurred before. This may or may not create novel structures." My response: A novel mutation is a NEW DNA strand, and DNA strands ARE structures...you can't say there was a novel mutation, but not a novel structure, when what you mean to say is that not all novel mutations create observable new phenotypes; DNA is a structure. Pro keeps at it: "The paper does not provide information on the mutations that occurred and thus we do not know whether new structures were created or rather an already existent formation was altered." My response: Mutated DNA lead to increased fitness in E. Coli, such that the researchers found a positive correlation between increased mutation rates and increased fitness. Also Pro, you are simply incorrect that the paper didn't provide information on the mutations that occurred...that was the whole paper! *Voters Please Look Here* Pro concedes the debate: "Con pointed out that the topics of the two other articles they provided address...supporting mutation as a major force that drove evolution. This is true, they do." My response: Yeah, Pro admits that the resolution has successfully been negated, because Pro acknowledges that the studies I provided show support for mutation as a major force that drove evolution; the idea that there is not enough evidence to show mutation driving evolution has been negated by what Pro said there. Pro adds to this: "it is possible for mutation to have an effect on evolution other than just the creation of purely novel structures" My response: Ok, then there is no need to satisfy Pro's request for the creation of purely novel structures, because Pro admits that this is not a requirement for mutations to drive evolution...I still have provided them though, because new DNA is a new structure, phenotypically observable or not. Pro requests: "With two more rounds to go I again ask that Con provide 2 more case studies." My response: Thank you Pro for recognizing the lack of clarity with the requirements first round, and that Pro has somewhat expanded my burden...because of this acknowledgement, I will provide two more studies. 1. http://www.pnas.org... "Cumulative frequency distributions for beneficial fitness effects associated with single-nucleotide substitutions measured for random and previously described mutations..." were found in the study. 2. http://www.pnas.org... "the results reported here show an adaptative evolutionary capacity that overwhelms speculation. It should be stressed that each series came from a single infectious particle that rapidly generated all mutations needed for the remarkable gains in fitness observed." Your thoughts, Pro?