There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

Whether he typed it himself, or someone else did, who knows and who cares - I'm glad we can get something constructive going on anyway. And while my opponent may think evolution is a joke, I too take Creationism, "intelligent falling", and religion as a joke. Equal standing ground eh ;D? Also, I want to note to my opponent and the voters that many of my opponent's arguments are peculiar, to say the least, to understand. Therefore, if I misrepresent an argument then I apologize. ==================== CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth ==================== I actually applaud my opponent for an original argument. Though it is incredibly erroneous in understanding, kudos for originality. Now onto the meat of my opponent's argument: He states that seeing an animal being fossilized, a fossil, does not tell us whether or not that particular animal has given birth - and he is correct in saying so. However, to take the extra leap of saying that the entire SPECIES has not reproduced (at least a regular pace) would be an extraordinary error. There are several reasons why we should suppose that the species a fossil used to pertain to was, to some degree, successful at reproducing: 1. Any species as a whole that lasts over a span of time must need a way to reproduce, if that span of time is at least significant in it's difference. For example, let's suppose that we find a fossil of an animal called A. This first fossil we found will be called fossil X. We date it and we find out that it lived 100,000 years ago. Later on, someone else finds another fossil of animal A - we will call this fossil Y. When we date fossil Y, we find out that it turns out to be 7,500 years old (suppose no drastic variations has happened). From here, we can stem that animal A's species lasted for at least 92,500 years - how else can the two fossils be separated by so much time? This kind of basic reasoning happens commonly when constructing a timeline with fossils. 2. Most species that survive have a mechanism of surviving so that they can reproduce - the ultimate goal of any animal. Look at everyone animal now, they all have their unique way of reproducing. For the most part, the balance of prey vs. predator is normal, until of course humans came along. But for the majority of untouched species, there is an equilibrium of sorts. Animals reproduce. {quote}Just like you have to witness a dead long gone creature giving birth to a creature you think it evolved into. {endquote} ----> Why does my opponent insist with this fallacious claim that something can only be proved when it's directly observed? MANY things are inferred from evidence, such as black holes, gravity, electrons, and evolution via fossils. ==================== CON Claims: Because evolution can't be directly observed, then adherents have to believe aliens exist ==================== Again, my opponent seems to be stuck in this loop of misunderstanding. You don't have to know something exists by direct observation - inference works just as well! As I stated before, we infer from theories and evidence the existence of many commonly held beliefs such as: gravity, black holes, elementary particles (electrons, quarks, etc. ) In addition, he makes it seem as if entertaining the possibility of aliens existing as wrong - it is not. As he said, the universe is mighty big, and there's a good chance that forms of life exist outside of our world, something I never disagreed with. However, science does NOT take the existence of aliens as a fact yet because it hasn't been verified - only seen as a possibility. Evolution is seen not only as a coherent theory, but a fact. In relation to fossils, evolution has many inferred evidence - not everything needs to be directly observed. The next big paragraph my opponent rambles on concerns the same argument. It is only until the end when he uses a new argument, so we'll go from there: ==================== Radiocarbon dating ==================== My opponent gives several examples of when "radiocarbon dating has gone bad". His attack fails for several reasons: 1. Where are your sources? I can't verify, let alone find, these claims if I have no source to check out the material. 2. Many times, radiometric dating "mistakes" happen when scientists use the wrong method when applying it (there are different types of radiocarbon dating, each with their maximum and minimum range of age they can measure) or if the test results were tainted. To check on these issues, I need to source my opponent has apparently not given. ==================== Comparative anatomy (presumably via fossils) ==================== I'm sorry, but this is quite the most logically incoherent argument I have seen yet. It's really hard to break it down, because it's filled with empty loops of "logic", and I'm afraid to misrepresent his argument. So let's go through some key phrases, and hopefully hit on the right spot. {quote}You would then say that a frog is related to a toad or another frog which is much smaller and produces deadly posion. Where as you would say that all animals are related in some way because they all have a beating heart. Either that is logic or just plain stupid. {endquote} ----> What's so stupid about it? Comparative anatomy has shown to be great evidence for evolution[1], and was in fact the first piece of evidence that inspired Darwin (the beaks of the finches). If evolution is correct, then species will adapt and gain new variations for whatever helped them have a greater success at reproducing. As such, their closer "relatives" (in an evolutionary tree sense) should share similar physical characteristics. It goes without saying that the closer one species is to another - in the evolutionary sense - the more common physical traits they have. Why do you think monkeys are so similar in physique compared to humans? Fossils are great evidence for this, since they leave the bone structures of animals behind, allowing for good comparative anatomy results[2][3]. The rest of the paragraph is no argument- my opponent basically says "I am right, you are wrong, I am logical, you are not, ergo I win. " Come on, this is not even an argument. {quote}You clearly do not know if a mouse is related to a cammal because you have not witnessed any offspring which has caused there to be either a cammal or a mouse from a none mouse or cammal. {endquote} ----> Not only is a mouse and a camel very far apart evolutionary speaking, evolution does NOT happen in one generation. It happens in a very long line of generations. Enough with the strawmans Godsands. The great majority of the following paragraphs are, and I mean this, complete red herrings. He rambles on about God, how atheists/evolutionists have bad logic, and the sort. There is nothing constructive or holding weight and I'm afraid I have nothing else to refute. {quote}Your life becomes much more meaningful, worthy and great when you look at life like this. Not meaningless, worthless and petty. {endquote} ----> I, and many other prominent people on this website, are atheists and evolutionists. On the contrary, most of us are having a great life filled with purpose and meaning. I don't know where you're baseless accusations stem from, but they surely don't hold. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's only arguments are against comparative anatomy and the issue of whether animals who are now fossils reproduced. Everything else is a COMPLETE red herring. ---References--- 1. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2. . http://encarta.msn.com... 3. . http://www.bshs.org.uk...