The theory of evolution is well established

I will quickly address Pro's rebuttal in order then give closing statements. Pro asserts that because the transporter used to create the 6 letter DNA came from a different species that it couldn't occur in nature. The fact that the transporter does occur in nature is an indicator that it could occur in nature. The fact the lab engineers chose to act across species is irrelevant. In fact, there is no reason a retrovirus couldn't produce this result. After all, retroviruses are believed to account for part of the human genome [1]. Pro dismissed out of hand the fact that there are exceptions to the 20 amino acids. The fact that some organisms use 23 amino acids instead of 20 is solid evidence that evolution can produce exceptions to the universal genetic code. Pro never once, in any round, address my objection that similar organisms will share similar function, thus DNA common between two similar species doesn't imply ancestry. Pro points out that large mutations are not prevented by the theory of evolution. In fact, there is a controversial topic called Saltation [2]. Given the possibility of Saltation, there is really no species that evolution cannot predict the existence of. If evolution is able to predict all out comes, whether observed or not, then there cannot be a falsifiable premise which leads to the conclusion that evolution is logically valid. Logically valid is defined as, "In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false. [3]". Pro accuses Intelligent Design of not holding any validity. However, Intelligent Design is based on multi-disciplinary principles. For example, the same logic used by the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) to determine if a signal comes from an intelligent source can be applied to observations about DNA [4]. In fact, Stephen Meyer created a logical construction for Intelligent Design that supports it. In fact, Stephen Meyer does not exclude the possibility of evolution [5]. Pro, along with many evolutionists, assert natural selection is the cause for the appearance of intelligence [6]. He never substantiates this with any evidence. I was unable to find evidence proposed by evolutionist as to why natural selection is a better explanation for the appearance of intelligence in DNA. Not only did my previous citation provide evidence, but neither does PBS [7]. Intelligent Design includes Theistic Evolution [8]. One of the most notable evolutionists of our time, Richard Dawkins, admits the appearance of intelligence [9]. If the two are not mutually exclusive, then the argument for intelligent design comes with scientific evidence for an intelligent force behind DNA, but the idea of natural selection does not. Additionally, the premise used to discredit intelligent design in favor of natural selection is not logically valid. Pro's only argument against intelligent design is that it doesn't have scientific evidence for it. I have dispelled that claim. I will point out that I used the word evidence, and there is a difference between evidence and proof. Pro seems to think that my assertion that there are many quirks to DNA sequencing is based solely on my quotation of Schwabe. In my opening arguments I also cited the National Center for Biotechnology Information [10] which discussed the possible methods for resolving these discrepancies. I have given two pro-evolution sources that claim there are a large number of quirks. Pro never cited a single source stating that there are not. Instead, he wanted me to give specific examples so he could rebut each one individually. The insistence on this mode of argumentation is not a valid, especially in light of my strong evidence from a standard evolution source [10]. Pro continues to downplay the significance of the bat-dolphin similarity. I should remind him that the article itself plays up the significance. The researchers discovered genetic signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 genomic regions when it came to dolphins and echolocating bats. ... These similarities were not seen with non-echolocating animals. "We didn't expect to see more than perhaps 10 to 30 genes converge, probably mainly hearing-related ones," researcher Joe Parker, an evolutionary biologist at Queen Mary University of London, told LiveScience. "Instead, we were able to detect many times that number." [11] Pro asserts that these genes were passed down from ancestors, even though I pointed out they were not. The "non-echolocating animals" in the study included bats that did not have the ability to echolocate. That means that there were bats that did not share the 200 common genomic regions which are associated with echolocation. Pro claims that natural selection could favor the same mutations. This is purely speculative reasoning. For one, bats don't swim in the ocean like dolphins do. The conditions set by natural selection are not guaranteed to be similar. Pro gave no premise by which we can reach that conclusion. He made several other claims from speculative reasoning such as chance could have produced two sets of genes that are identical through random mutation. Evolution predicts, as stated by the article, that this similarity would not occur. In most cases it does not. Pro continues to assert that the existence of marsupials only in Australia is evidence of evolution taking place there. We know that Australia broke off from the land mass known as Gondwana about 140 million years ago [12]. However, in 2013, a new marsupial fossil was found that dated back 55 million years ago [13]. The article headline is, "Two tiny marsupial fossils from Australia are prompting an overhaul of theory about marsupial evolution after they revealed unexpected links to South America and Africa." The oldest Platypus fossil known to man is 120 million years old [14]. If a Platypus fossil were found in Africa dating back to 160 million years, this would overhaul the hypothesis about marsupial evolution. It would not imply that evolution did not take place. If Pro's premise were to be falsified, it would not effect Pro's conclusion that evolution took place. A premise should not be used to support a conclusion that doesn't logically follow. Pro never addressed my objection that there are other groups that are only found in one location, even though they could migrate elsewhere. Thus, the existence of a group of animals in only one location is not a premise that logically implies evolution. If it doesn't logically imply evolution took place, then the premise should not be counted as proving evolution. The premise that new species emerged after continental separation took place isn't testable. As I just pointed out, if a specific case were falsified, it wouldn't make evolutionists question evolution. In closing, Pro failed to provide any evidence for evolution that, if falsified, would discredit the theory. If the theory cannot be discredited, then it shouldn't be considered as established. Pro asserts the universal genetic codes is evidence for evolution, but exceptions to it do not discredit evolution. When I gave two examples (5 species total) of genes that match exactly in multiple species with distinct origin that did not inherit them from their ancestors, Pro simply denied the evidence. Pro maintains that even if this was the case, it would not discredit evolution, because evolution doesn't exclude the possibility of the exact same genes evolving multiple times. Pro asserts that locality of fossils of species is evidence for evolution, but my multiple examples of contradictions to that rule would not discredit evolution. Pro even agreed with me that we observe the same phenomena in species which are not separated by water or hostile environments. Conclusion: Pro has failed to provide any evidence for evolution that, if falsified, would discredit evolution. Pro refused to address the issue that there are so many quirks in DNA. I have shown that these quirks are agreed to by evolutionists and have been addressed by a number of hypothesis which are based on speculation. I have shown that there are prominent evolutions who agree to the appearance of intelligence in DNA, and that intelligent design provides evidence from other scientific disciplines that DNA isn't the result of chance. Evolution, on the other hand, provides no evidence that natural selection is more reasonable than intelligent design. Intelligent design have philosophical implications that skeptics are not willing to accept. In a world where naturalism is assumed, evolution is the only rational explanation for origins, but if non-natural origins are considered as possibly valid, then other theories emerge as rationally possible, which weakens the already shaky argument for evolution. 1) http://www.retrovirology.com... 2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3) http://lmgtfy.com... 4) http://www.designinference.com... 5) http://www.patheos.com... 6) http://www.actionbioscience.org... 7) http://www.pbs.org... 8) http://biologos.com... 9) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11) http://www.livescience.com... 12) http://en.wikipedia.org... 13) http://www.sci-news.com... 14) http://www.nytimes.com...