E v. C

""Kind" is the English interpretation of the Hebrew "min. " "Bara" means "Create". Therefore, "Baramin" simply means "created kind. " I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro. " That is not only a definition which begs the question (Kind is "created kind", which presumes creation), but it also has no value in discussion here; Con has not defined "Kind" in a way that it could actually be applied. Is a Cat a kind? Mammal? We don't know; from Con we have only "kind means kind". "Pro claims . .. " Again, Con needs to make actual arguments, rather than copy-pasta-ing quotes that are both taken out of context and have no supporting validity. Con has still failed to show how small changes do not add up to big changes, nor has he done anything to establish his case. "My first argument relies on the either/or scenario. .. " And is invalid. That some mutation is negative has never been contested, and does not harm the evolutionary theory. Con has consistently claimed that it does, but has given no reason why evolution, with its random changes, would preclude negative changes. As I already established, neutral or negative changes are both expected to be, and are, the majority of mutations. "Now that it has been established that I have not indeed misconstrued geneticists. .. " It hasn't. ". .. let us reconsider the evidence. " Con's argument here has no merit. He presents none of the math he's claiming to use, and provides no support for why Muller's Ratchet provides no reason to "extrapolate into the past" in the manner he proposes. "The second argument is that of evolutionary stasis. The basic argument is that the YEC model much more easily accounts for the fossil without the need for such terms as "evolutionary stasis. " Now, I"m not saying that it is impossible for GTE to explain such a phenomenon, but that the YEC position is a much explanation of the data than the GTE," Con gives, once again, on reason for asserting this. He has not said what the YEC position actually is, beyond the "Goddidit", nor why this "goddidit" would explain evolutionary stasis more than evolution's current explanation, which is simply that the species in question are either not prone to mutations in the first place, or already suited well enough to their environment that very few beneficial and continuing mutations occur. "Quite simply, GTE postulates that change has occurred near uniformly throughout time. " No. This is simply not true, and Con gives us no reason to suppose this. This is only yet another assertion Con makes with no evidence or reasoning. "Thus, any form of stasis is a problem for the GTE, but can be explained very easily under YEC. .. " Con continues to not define his terms or what he means by YEC. It's easy to simply wave one's hand and say "X is explained by Y", when you've never actually said what Y is. "The YEC explanation is that there has been no GTE, which is in keeping with the data, and that all of life has remained within the confines of their "baramins"" The YEC explanation explains nothing about why some species have changed and some haven't. The evolutionary theory does. "As shown, in both of my arguments, the YEC model always fits the data better than the GTE model. " Again, my opponent hasn't presented his YEC model! While evolution is generally understood, YEC is often un- or ill defined. By never actually defining even such simple terms as Con's "Kind", Con has created an impossible to falsify theory that makes no predictions and has no value. "So, the charge is that I have not begun "from first principles" and as such is "dishonest. " Again, Con seems to ignore what I actually called him dishonest for: 1-Trying to avoid the Burden of Proof. To quote him: "I will not directly refute his evidence in so many words, because to do so would be to take on an unrequired BoP which Pro is trying to shed on me. " And my response, directed at Con: "YOU accepted a shared BoP. Trying to claim, now, that there isn't one is fundamentally dishonest of you. " 2-Complaining about a source's validity even as he acknowledges the content is true. He simultaneously complained that the WP article wasn't sourced well enough, and therefore the claim that Muller's Ratchet ignores certain things is to be questioned, but that Muller had good reason to ignore those things. Again, he agreed that Muller did even as he complained about a source that said Muller did. Con has defined no terms, has failed to defend his cosmology, has presented no arguments for the existence of God, and has complained about being strawmanned while both not actually presenting a case and strawmanning evolution by making completely unsupported claims about what the theory "requires". He has completely failed in his BoP and has, indeed, attempted to argue that he doesn't have one. In short, Con has failed to present his case whatsoever, He does have a BoP, and he has completely failed in it. By choosing to do nothing but attack evolution, and never actually making a case, Con has not fulfilled his obligations. While I am not an evolutionary biologist, I believe I have shown that evolution exists, and that it is up to Con to demonstrate his "kinds" hypothesis in order for it to be even considered as a limiting factor. Con chose not to do so. Evolution is not a perfect theory; few scientific theories are. And it will likely need to be adjusted as new facts and evidence come to light. But it is the best explanation for what we see, and Con has given no case why we should presume his undefined theory. This final round is no place for a new argument. However, in closing, I'd like to sum up this debate with an analogy: Imagine you find a hole in your wall. "Well, it's the size of my child's fist", you reason, "So I think my child punched the wall. " "Not so," says your friend, "I don't think your kid is strong enough to punch the wall. It's much more likely the invisible unicorns". "What makes you think there are invisible unicorns? " "Well, your kid is just too young and too weak to punch the wall. " "Right, I get that. And he is pretty weak, so maybe he swung a toy or something, I'm not sure, but what makes you think it was invisible unicorns? " "Well, can't you see that this wall has a hole in it? " Perhaps it was invisible unicorns, but in order for that to be plausible, there has to be some support for the actual case. Thank you to Con, and to the readers and voters.