The "deteriorating process" can explain all inferred instances of the "compounding process."

Criteria of proof Pro suggests that in order for the burden of proof to be met, one has to observe the mutations in action. This is an enormous burden to establish for both of us, since the genetic information we are discussing occurred in the distant past. Neither one of us has provided evidence to reach this stringent threshold. If this ridiculous condition was explicitly stated in round 1, I would have never have accepted this debate. For those unable to follow the burden of proof: In round 1, it was suggested that the burden of proof is more on Con than Pro. In round 2, the burden of proof was place squarely on Con. In round 4, the burden of proof was established as shared, presumably because Pro was unable to parry my evidence. Thus, this rigid rule does in fact apply to both of us. Evidence establishing my thesis as true My thesis in this debate was: "New genetic information can and does arise in the form of new genes and can give organisms a measurable characteristic that distinguishes it from other organisms. " The evidence I put forth was the jingwei gene, which is present in two African Drosophilia species and the RNASE 1B gene, which is present in the leaf-eating monkey. I explained the molecular mechanisms involved in generating the new genetic material, referenced reports and scientific sources that demonstrated that these genes have species specific novel functions, and I presented specific evidence for how it was determined that the new information came from other genetic information. To refute this information, my opponent first deflected my evidence as false using specious logic, which over-simplified and mischaracterized my position. Pro next claimed that since the mutation in the genes was not directly observed he doesn't have to account for its existence, and thus doesn't have to provide an alternate explanation for how these genes could have arose through the loss of genetic information. In round 5, my opponent concedes that the jingwei gene is an actual gene, which implies that it has a function, but again never provides an explanation to refute the one I provided. Pro believes the mutations scientists are deducing from phylogenetic comparisons of paralogous genetic sequences within genus and applying the principle of Occam's Razor to the data to build a testable model is not valid. So, in my opponent's mind, he only has to provide a baseless alternate "model" suggesting that the genes could have been "carry down from the original' ancestor. Yet he doesn't even show any evidence of where such a claim can be logically inferred. What is unfortunate for my opponent is that he failed to comprehend the evidence I put forth in the previous rounds to support my thesis; it still stands. Pro's evidence for proving his postulate Pro's has provided several proofs to prove his postulate that "All instances of speciation are capable of being explained by the degenerative process which means the compounding process is not required. " Yet he never once put forth any instance of speciation or trait that he could explain through the degenerative process. His first proof relies on the assumption that biological functions are linearly derived from genetic information. But this was refuted in round 2, when I demonstrated that the loss of biological function stems from a down-regulation of protein expression, not a loss of genetic information. Pro was never able to demonstrate that the mutation was caused by a loss of genetic information. He just assumes that loss of function is loss of genetic information, but this is what has to be proved. Pro's proof 2 is a thought experiment that describes his proof 3. In this case, Pro relies on the assumption that a decrease in gene flow variation is synonymous with loss of genetic information. And again he doesn't provide any examples, even thought he does state that he "could list numerous examples". Instead he wants me to pick one he could disprove, but these are his proofs and my only role is to refute his evidence; not provide it for him. My opponent's next three proofs were just textbook explanations for modes of speciation, not explanations for how speciation can occur by genetic loss. And his last proof wasn't evidence at all, but rather a subjective opinion that had no genetic basis for how the conclusion applies to his postulate. Closing comments The title of any debate should indicate the scope of what is going to be deliberated. The title of this debate reads: "The ‘deteriorating process' can explain all inferred instances of the ‘compounding process'; where the ‘deteriorating process' is defined as the loss of genetic information and the ‘compounding process' is defined as the gain of genetic information. To me, this suggests that the debate will be steeped in molecular genetics. Further, the instigator took the Pro position, which from the perspective as the Con means he will provide the evidence that I must refute. This was not the case, burden of proof shifted throughout the entire debate, and the evidence I present was ignored because it didn't meet Pro's unreasonable definition of proof, which was established after the debate had begun. In round 3, my opponent rightfully defines science as the systematic pursuit of knowledge of the physical world though observation or experimentation. Observation here suggests that the phenomena being studied can be measured and the experimentation suggests properly controlled methods that can be used to answer a hypothesis. The evidence I present came from the observations and experimentation of which the definition is referring, and as such, stands as valid; thus proving my thesis as true and disproving Pro's postulate.