Destroying the naturalistic creation myth of evolution.

My oppoents arguments have been purely analytical, such argumentation on a subjective of such scientific prestige as evolution gives serious concern to the validity of any of his arguments. It is illogical and irrational to think that one could disprove evoluiton using simple analytics and in place of pro I will use substantial and scientifically sound recourses to back my claims. Pro has used typical arguments against evolution so in order to firmly establish why his points are wrong I will use a lot of quoted evidence from credible soures.Things to note: pro has conceded that he harbors the full burden of proof.Topicality1.) Pro has not defined what a creation myth is nor has he justified that evolution is a creation myth. In order to win he must do so, as he harbors full burden of proof the resolution cannot be affirmed until this is proven to be factual, furthermore he must prove that this creation myth is naturalistic, again until proven he cannot win.Rebuttal to Analogy and other specific evolution claimsThe opposition claims that I have made irrelevant claims towards his analogy however if this was true why would he feel the need to expand on it more? Secondly, he doesn't refute the argument itself and thus being that 'silence is compliance' in debate, this argument is considered 100% true. I maintain the validity of my argument and procced to rebutt the rest of this section....CLAIM: "I disagree with the idea that small variations like the variations that we can see from dogs to wolfs or the many size of dogs can prove that evolution is possible. That's because geneticaly those changes are esencialy different from those changes that could turn a fish into a frog over the time for example."1.) The claim that variation in dog species is not 'adding new information is ridiculously weak. The dog has changed forms, genetics change forms, those changed forms are different from before, the genetics are now different, genetics have added new information. 2.) Secondly the position that the genetic differences are "esencialy different" is indisputibly unsupported by scientific literature or other citations. This claim is voided until such is presented.Rebutal to impossibility of Neofunctionilization/adding new information." It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000). RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000). The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000)."" [1] Rebuttal to mathmatical 'impossiblity' of evolutionI'm not even going to refute this math because it is purely analytical and unfounded. If this is a legitimate mathmatical proposition reason and burden of proof requires quoted Scientific evidence which states the exact same theory against probablity. Instead I will show quoted scientific evidence which acually holds substantial credability.I'll start with this quote:"Biological evolution is such a complex process that any attempt to describe it precisely in a way similar to the description of the dynamic processes in physics by mathematical methods is impossible." [2] This specifically refers to PRECISE calculations such as the given attempt at a mathmatical problem however it later says that arbitrary models demonstrating the fundementals are ok... "Any allowable model has to reflect the main features of evolution." Whic the given clearly does not do." Evolution as a Darwinian-Mendelian process takes place via a succession of gene replacement processes, whereby a new “superior” gene arises by mutation in the population and, by natural selection, steadily replaces the current gene. (We use here the word “gene” rather than the more technically accurate “allele”.) It has recently been estimated (1) that a newborn human carries some de novo 100–200 base mutations. Only about five of these can be expected, on average, to arise in parts of the genome coding for genes or in regulatory regions. In a population admitting a million births in any year, we may expect something on the order of five million such de novo mutations, or about 250 per gene in a genome containing 20,000 genes. There is then little problem about a supply of new mutations in any gene."They go on to respond to another argument on mathmatical probablity which relates the alphabet, representing genetic sequences, in relation to the number of possible letters to form the correct word. They make L equal to the number of letters in the correct word (gene) and K, the number of possible letters in the alphabet (number of amino acids). They state:"Suppose that we are trying to find a specific unknown word of L letters, each of the letters having been chosen from an alphabet of K letters. We want to find the word by means of a sequence of rounds of guessing letters. A single round consists in guessing all of the letters of the word by choosing, for each letter, a randomly chosen letter from the alphabet. If the correct word is not found, a new sequence is guessed, and the procedure is continued until the correct sequence is found. Under this paradigm the mean number of rounds of guessing until the correct sequence is found is indeed K^L. But a more appropriate model is the following: After guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct, and then those letters are retained. The second round of guessing is applied only for the incorrect letters that remain after this first round, and so forth. This procedure mimics the “in parallel” evolutionary process. The question concerns the statistics of the number of rounds needed to guess all of the letters of the word successfully. Our main result is For example, if we are using a K = 40 letter alphabet, and a word of length 20,000 letters, then the number of possible words is about 1034,040, but our theorem shows that a mean of only about " [2] Rebuttal to Circular reasoningThis will also be short, as this is argument is fairly simple, non significant and tangendental. If you disagree, please explain how this disproves evolution, this wasn't explained enough for a debate round.1.) Fossil records are based off of carbon dating, a reliable way of measuring time2.) You have not given specific examples of this circular reasoning, such as quotations from evoluitonary scientists. You must provide this, otherwise you have simply suggested that this is what evolution does without actually showing (proving) us. 3.) According to Occam's Razor, the option requiring the least amount of assumptions should be considered true, evolution requires less than the theory of a god, and you cannot prove gods existance (try if you wish) so evolution should be considered true.ConclusionPro has conceded full burden of proof, he has ignored my argument on his analogy thus it should be considered as true. He has claimed that something such as wolf-dog evolution doesn't 'seem' possible but hasn't backed this claim and he has also neglected to support the claim that genetic variations can be radically different, in general actually, he has not supported his claims with evidence of any sort. Next I gave empircal evidence concerning adding 'new information' to the genetic code and litterally give studies showing this. I then use a peer reviewed study backing time scale with math ad then quickly show why his last argument is invalid. Citations[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...[2] http://www.pnas.org...