The Theory of Evolution Is Valid

RI. Science and Empirical LimitsRIA. Evolution Is ObservedBefore I go in to showing how proofs of evolution are really applied, it is necessary to go back to the definition of the Theory of Evolution first. Here it is: "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. " Now, I will provide a definition of natural selection: "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. "[1][2]So by accepting natural selection, my opponent has basically conceded the entire debate. Evolution is a lot more complicated than that, but on its most simple level, natural selection is evolution. Next, my opponent asks a bunch of conceptual questions that really have no point. I will explain by going through two of them. 1. Beavers: By my opponent's source, running water causes beavers to create dams because they can't take the sound. That is an example of evolution. Sometime ago, beavers figured out that building a dam would silence the sound, and quickly started to expriment with dams. Eventually, dam building became standardized, like it is today. This is an example of evolution. [3]2. Spiders: While building webs is now instinctive in all spiders, it certainly wasn't like that in the beginning. The knowledge wasn't always there. "The main reason spiders spin webs is to catch their dinner. When an insect, such as a fly, flies into a spider’s web, it gets stuck on the sticky threads. " Spiders figured out that is was most efficient to build a web, which they naturally produce, to catch food, and so it started. [4]I think you're beginning to see why the examples my opponent cited really prove my case, not his. Nothing is truly instinctive in the sense that it was always there. It came from somewhere far back in the evolutionary tree. I could keep posting examples of natural selection, as in source 5, but it seems a little redundant. If my opponent has any real objections, I'll answer them in the next round. RIB. Testable and FalsifiableEvolution is falsifiable. For example, evolution makes certain predictions that, if found false, would be a falsifing factor for evolution. "Several kinds of evidence could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating, or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously. "[6][7]Many of the predictions made by Darwin in his work On the Origin of Speicies have been falsified. In another capacity, Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. " Yes, this is the very quote my opponent used, and it doesn't really support his case too well. [8]RIC. EvidenceThere is a truly astounding amount of evidence in support of the theory of evolution. Going back to the bacteria example from round 2: "This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved. " I suppose some other outside force forced it to have a mass die-off and create drug-resistent bacteria? [9]Going back to my opponent's deductive logic:1 - If P, then Q.2 - Q.3 - Therefore, P. Rearranging this to fit the debate:P1: Theory T predicts observation O. P2: Observation O is observedC: Therefore, theory T is probably true. In an isolated system, having O observed would indeed be a direct confirmation of T, and that is exactly what the bacteria experiment implies - the bacteria is in equilibrium; an antibiotic is introduced, killing most of the bacteria, but some survive, and eventually reproduce. Take this real-life example: "The Peppered Moth is another example of evolution in response to environmental change. There are two types of these moths, one species has a light colour while the other one is darker. When Britain begun industrialising, the soot from the factories would land on trees and so the darker moths then had an advantage over the light ones as they could easily hide from predators. Before the soot, both types of moths were eaten by predators however now that the darker ones were able to hide the lighter ones got eaten more often. The population of the darker moths rapidly increased while that of the lighter ones rapidly decreased until only the dark moths were left. All the lighter moths were less adapted to the environmental change and so they could no longer survive in that new environment. "[10]RII. Fossil RecordMy opponent begins by taking a quote out of context. Here is what that quote was really supposed to mean: "So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups. "[11]RIIA. PredictionsHere, my opponent first tries to argue that species that don't evolve are evidence against evolution. However, there is a better explanation. Oftentimes, this argument involves confusing different taxonomic categories with individual species. For instance, it is often said that there were coelacanths millions of years ago, and coelacanths today. What this neglects to mention is that "Coelacanth" is the informal name of an entire order of fish, Coelacanthiformes, not just a specific species. The current genus and the two species within it, for instance, are not known in the "millions of years ago" fossil record. The modern species may well be similar sorts of creatures to those that lived millions of years ago, but the are clearly not the same unchanged species (or even the same genus). Further, Evolution does not predict any one rate at which major changes will happen to a given lineage, and in fact it strongly suggests that the rate of change will vary widely with different species in different environments. "[12] Then my opponent tries to argue that there is no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, when, in fact, there are a plethora of answers. [13]In one particularally strong argument, "We suspect that the elevated concentration of ions in seawater effectively lowered the evolutionary barrier for biomineralisation. Today, most organisms invest energy in creating biominerals because hard body parts are so ecologically and evolutionarily advantageous. But evolution couldn’t “forsesee” how useful biominerals would be when shape into the teeth, claws, and shells we know today. Instead, we think the ion influx promoted by the last stages in the formation of the Great Unconformity may have lowered the energy barrier to biomineralisation or caused biominerals to appear as metabolic byproducts. The usefulness of these new raw materials meant that natural selection could quickly take over. "[14][15]Finally, my opponent tries to argue that a whale could not evolve from a raccoon sized animal, but it's important to remember that all life evolved from protozoa - which is basically the smallest living thing in the world. RIIB. Living FossilsI covered this in the last section above. Sources[1]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]: . http://www.naturealmanac.com...[4]: . http://wonderopolis.org...[5]: . http://dsc.discovery.com...[6]: . http://www.talkorigins.org... [7]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[8]: Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. p. 189 [9]: . http://anthro.palomar.edu... [10]: . http://www.ibguides.com...[11]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[12]: . http://evolutionwiki.org...'t_seem_to_evolve_for_millions_of_years[13]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[14]: . http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...[15]: . http://www.newscientist.com...NOTE: Sources 6 and 8 were quoted from source 7.