Darwinian Evolution is a Weak Theory

Evolution is Natural Selection and Random Gene Mutations. I don't care how many labels you tag on it. It doesn't change what it is or the fact that it's a sound theory. You're wrong that it doesn't explain it. Scientist have proven that abiogenesis is inevitable in our environment. RNA can reproduce itself when on top of certain minerals and that's all it takes to do the rest. You're begging the question when you say that Evolution has to account for new genes. As I've already stated, There are no such things as "new genes". There are four building block for all genes. G T A C. That's it. Those four building blocks have been around since the dawn of time and the process by which they gain complexity is scientifically proven. There are mutations that add gene strand randomly and these can occur in a number of different ways. Scientists can go into a lab and observe the genes of different generations of organisms, Including humans, And see the complexity being added. This categorically disproves your entire argument. You said: "It's true that increased complexity doesn't always provide better fitness. " Glad we're on the same page. You said: "increasing complexity is something that needs to be explained, " There are three things wrong with this statement. A) Increasing complexity is explained by gene mutations and has been repeatedly observed. B) Even if this wasn't the case, It would not disprove evolution, Because it would not change the fact that gene mutation and natural selection happened, It would just mean the theory is incomplete, Not incorrect. There's a difference. C) Gene mutations do not always increase complexity and not every complex organism has complex gene and visa versa. Some mutations just switch the around the amino acids in the genes while leaving them the same size, While others take away genes. That's why it's called random mutation. Evolution has never made claims that complexity keeps increasing and genes are not becoming increasingly more complex. This is just another case of you begging the question. Big mistake going to eyes. That's one of the fastest ways to help my case. Once again, They're not "new genes" They're just new combinations of G T A C. All of the materials needed to form the eye existed since the dawn of earth. Richard Dawkins famously demonstrated step by step how easy it is to form the eye with evolution. It starts out as an eye spot which returns a Boolean "light" or "not light". Then a slight cupping occurs to allow for angle which gives them fuzzy vision. Then the cup slowly closes to a iris. Then a piece of gunk starts to form in the hole of the cup and now we have an eyeball. Everything I said is explained by evolution and did not require any new pieces at all. This is why your critiques of evolution are simply false. Okay, So all this proves is that you created your own personal classification of genes. You can call them new genes and you're justified to say that colloquially. However, It doesn't change facts about anything. That's why you're begging the question. Basically A was solved and you arbitrarily said that this part of A is B and B is not solved, So now we have to solve B. But be was just A and A was already solved, So the problem is a scam. So you're not going to support your claim then? Interesting. I never said you had to prove the non existence of something. You said that just now. You made a claim that "Evolution is a weak theory" That is not a claim of nonexistence. That's a claim as to the quality of a theory. Therefore asking for proof of said claim in far from nonsensical. Furthermore, Even if your claim was of nonexistence, It's still a claim and still must be proven by showing the absence of something, Which you have not done. All you've done is beg the question even after I asked for proof of your question begging. "The only way for this debate to move forward would be for you to provide just one article demonstrating how mutation can create new genes. " I'm sitting in a big of new genes right now and so are you. An article is just somebody else's opinion. No different than my opinion or yours. In order for me to even have to prove this claim, You first have to prove that it needs to be explained. Because science is on my side and not yours. So why do I have to prove something that has already been demonstrated? First of all, The celestial teapot is not a fallacy. Get your nomenclature right. It's a thought experiment. Second of all. You would be right, If your claim was about nonexistence. But it's not, It's a claim about quality. You already admitted yourself that evolution exists, So you can't just double talk you way out of this by pretending that you have a negative claim. That's just you lying through your teeth and then shifting the burden of proof. Nice try though. "You merely making this claim does not count as evidence for it. " You're right, But the huge body of scientific evidence in my favor does. I don't have to cite evidence for people to know that science is on my side. Everyone knows that, Including you. You complain too much. I willing passed my round after you "glitched" which was really just you being too stubborn to listen when I told you to not put your links in with your argument and to post them in the comments. I've been more than fair to you and you don't get to complain about one lost round when I had the same amount of rounds as you, I was going to go last anyway and would always have had the chance to post articles even if you didn't glitch, And to top it off, You wasted your first two statements repeating the same arguments without supporting them and now all of a sudden you don't care about wasting your statements. Little piece of advice. If you want to make good arguments. How about you lead with your good ones in the beginning instead of quipping over who gets to do what last. Bad Debate.