E v. C

Thanks to my opponent. "...I am assuming a dichotomy...Arguing against one gives support for the other" is not true. In a shared BoP such as has been established for this debate, each side must not only rebut their opponent's case, but must also establish their own. While the terms of the debate made clear that "Equal" was a "wrong" answer, if I only successfully rebut all of Creationism's arguments, I have done nothing to establish the likelihood of evolution/old earth's truth, though it would only take one argument unrebutted to do so. In other words, if neither one of us fulfills our burden of proof, then nobody wins, and disproving evolution does not prove creationism. I will also ask Con to not use videos for further sourcing for practical purposes. Moving on: "The genome is ...highly degradational" is misleading, particularly in light of how Con uses it further down. Genome degradation is synonymous with genome reduction. While the genome can degrade, and while "sequenced genome data are practically biased toward small genomes"[1], it can also increase. For example, "...in the wild rice species Oryza australiensis, for example, amplification of three TEs accounts for a 2-fold increase in genome size."[2] Con's second source is not reliable. However, "In fact, the vast majority of mutations is known to be degradational." -- does no harm to the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that; this description of what actually happens does nothing to harm a theory that takes that into account. In fact, it does harm to the creationist theory: if god made every species exactly as we see them today, it would stand to reason that there would be no mutations. I also ask Con to clarify what he means by "degradational"; again, as noted, genome degradation means the reduction in size of the genome, and it doesn't not appear he is using it in that sense. "...genetic noise, which prevents natural selection..." Genetic noise does not prevent "natural selection", and saying so is a completely unsupported proposition. Natural selection is nothing more than "the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers"[3]; it has been witnessed in action countless times. Also unsupported is this statement: "most degradational mutations cannot be selected against." Mendel was showing that selection happened in the 1800s for traits[3]; and anyone who owns a dog has seen the effects of selecting for traits. It happens. Natural selection is just when it's done naturally. "... humans would die out in the next 20 million years (Starting 2006)..." I can only read the abstract of that paper in Con's 3, due to it being a pay-to-read paper, but it clearly says that it's discussing "Muller's Ratchet", a known issue posited for asexual reproduction that, while it describes a specific pattern of events, has not been established through any studies as being consistent fact, and ignores back mutation. It also doesn't take into account the fact that many organisms that were once considered asexual are now known to exchange genetic material [4]. Further, that the paper might establish that the human race may go extinct does absolutely nothing to address whether evolution is true or not; posting it as though it's a fault with evolution is simply an appeal to emotion. Finding fault with a theory because of a prediction you don't like, as opposed to finding fault with it for making a prediction you know to be untrue, is not a legitimate way to reach the truth. "degradational mutations cannot be selected against...they are intrinsically tied with the few beneficial mutations through a phenomena known as linkage blocks..." This is, again, a blanket assertion with no basis in fact. While I can easily concede the fact that whole sequences of genes are "linked", that does not mean that all "degradational mutations" (by which I continue to assume Con means deleterious mutations) are always inextricably linked to "the few beneficial mutations" (by which I will assume Con means advantageous mutations). I concede that ones that are linked may not be selected against, but Con has not shown that that is always the case. Thus, deleterious mutations can be selected against; perhaps not all of them, but that would be perfectly in line with the theory of evolution and genetics as we understand it. "The evolutionary model cannot predict degradation...it predicts just the opposite! From the theory of common descent, we should expect that we would see more beneficial mutations than degradational mutations." That is simply not true. The theory of evolution only states that there will be both advantageous and deleterious mutations. It doesn't say anything about what their relative prevalence will be and, in fact, generally predicts that, due to the random nature of these mutations and the narrow window of "advantageous" compared to the relatively wide window of "deleterious", that there will be more harmful mutations than beneficial ones. "In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous; however, the proportion of types of mutations varies between species." [5] "If there were more degradational than beneficial mutations, then it would be impossible for evolution to occur..." Con has, once again, made a completely unsupported assertion. "Under this model [of creationism]...degradation has occurred since the... Fall... From this view, genetic degradation is consistent, and is in fact a prediction, of the model." I believe I've shown how Con has misconstrued the evidence he has presented, and how the idea of deleterioius mutations does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary hypothesis. Based on the model being presented by Con, where deleterious mutations are a result of man's fall, one would expect to find NO advantageous mutations; as we do see advantageous mutations [6], the creation model fails to explain the topic sufficiently. It posits no mechanism further than evolution. The fact that some species will not change over time means only, in evolutionary terms, that no beneficial mutations have occurred. Just as a dice roll may come up 6 many consecutive times and not invalidate the theory of probability, a few species lack of change over time does not invalidate evolution, no matter how many quotes Con posts that try to claim the contrary based on assertion. These so-called living fossils do need explanation, and the explanation we have is satisfactory. "The second point to note is that even if stasis had occurred, genetic degradation would have caused the extinction of that organism (population)." That which is asserted based on no evidence, can be dismissed on the same grounds, particularly since this "degradation" was established by Con. "On the Creation model however, stasis is no problem..." The creation model that Con has proposed also says that we should expect deleterious mutations, since they all come from the time of man's fall. Con has yet to provide an explanation for why different species are "degrading" at different rates, if there is a single cause, and Con has yet to explain why some species degrade and some don't. If Con proposes that this is a result of random changes, and that some will be beneficial but most won't, then Con concedes evolution, which is nothing more than that. Con has spent this round mostly attacking concepts of evolution, and spent little to no time establishing his own case. As I've reached the character limit, I can't do much more. [1] --http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] --http://www.hindawi.com... [3] --http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] --http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] --http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] --http://en.wikipedia.org...