The Current Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory

First off, I believe my opponent and I can agree that natural selection occurs and can create new species. Both in the evolution and the creation model, natural selection plays a huge part. We will probably disagree however, how much change natural selection can create. Natural selection cannot create species outside a created kind. Dogs will remain dogs, cats will remain cats. The underlying problem is the issue of genetic information. For evolution to work, new genetic information must be introduced to the population. Natural selection is a destructive process that selects the traits that are best suited for environment. Whereas the traits not suited for the environment get eliminated, therefore information is lost. Evolutionists have looked to mutations to fix this problem, but the problem is that mutations do not create new information in the genome. Mutations or copying mistakes of DNA destroy functional genes not creating them. For example, a mutation in the p53 gene disables the production of a protein responsible for regulation cell growth. And when cells uncontrollably grow and reproduce, you get cancer [1]. Even beneficial mutations such as lactose intolerance are due to the destruction of functional genes. Lactose intolerance is caused when there is a mutation in the LCT gene that is responsible for producing the lactase enzyme which breaks down lactose [2]. Therefore mutations and natural selection do not produce the type of change necessary for evolution. In fact, because it is observed that only genetic information can be lost, two things can be implied. Because genetic info can’t arise naturally, it can be assumed that all genetic information was created in the beginning by an intelligent designer. A more recent origin of all living things. To refute my claim is simple; provide an example where a mutation has increased the amount of information in the genome. Another issue with the evolutionary model is living fossils. For example, the horseshoe crab which still exists today remains completely identical to the fossils 445 million years old [3]. The fact that such organisms don’t change in these huge timescales proves a problem for evolution. How could these remain unchanged over millions upon millions of years whereas around them, wolves were evolving to whales, dinosaurs to birds, and apes to humans? Over such a time period, drastic changes in the environment, evolving predators, evolving prey, and plenty of mass extinctions were occurring. Such organisms would have had to evolve to be able to survive. The fact that modern creatures have coexisted with “ancient” species affirms the creation account that all kinds of animals were created at the same time which brings me to my next point. Because the creation model claims that all “kinds” have coexisted together, it is often ridiculed because it was thought of as preposterous that ancient creatures such as dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans. However, a strong case can be built that the two coexist together. I’ll be mainly talking about dinosaurs since they are a popular example to ridicule creationists. A piece of evidence that contradicts the evolutionary notion that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago is the soft tissue in dinosaur bones [4]. [4] The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen, hemoglobin, and osteocalcin [5]. A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years [6]. However, it is believed that dinosaurs lived in warm moist environments that would quickly degrade such proteins. Statement 1: Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago Statement 2: Preserved dinosaur soft tissue and proteins still exist Statement 3: Such substances can’t survive for millions of years Obviously there is a contradiction here. It can be reasonably deduced that at least one of these statements is false. Statement 2 can’t be false because an ever growing amount of dinosaur specimens are directly observed to have soft tissue. And the Biochemist report and what is known how soft tissue quickly decays proves that statement 3 can’t be false. One might question why evolutionists don’t bring statement 1 into question as it is the only statement not backed by direct observation. In addition, dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated which also contradicts millions of years. The main reason why things older than 50,000 years old aren’t usually carbon dated can be seen in the graph below. [9] As seen here, objects ‘older’ than 50,000 years should have no more Carbon-14 left to be measured. Yet it is present in the fossils [7]. While we are on the topic of fossils, they also prove another problem for evolution. Darwin has predicted that we would find numerous transitional forms that transcend the biblical kinds. However, in the millions of fossils uncovered since then, there is rather a lack of transitional forms. Evolution claims that many modern species today can be linked to a common ancestor that would link the two together (ex. Amphibians and tetrapods), however what we have are a few, disputed examples of transitional fossils. Another argument I’ll be making is the design found in living things. Even Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” [13]. My first part of this argument stems from irreducible complexity. Basically there are structures in organisms that require many parts to function properly that natural selection isn’t capable of producing. An example can be seen with the eye, a structure that requires a perfect arrangement of parts to provide vision for the organism. Another example can be found in bacteria’s flagellum. The main point here is that transitional forms of such structures do not function. I’ll leave it to Pro to dispute Michael Behe’s claims next round. On top of irreducible complexity, on occasion we see design beyond what is needed for survival. An example that I’ll refer to are human facial muscles. On top of performing tasks necessary for survival such as eating and speaking, almost half of those muscles are solely dedicated to creating facial expressions. The problem is that having the ability to smile, frown, or smirk does not aid in the survival of humans. Such traits aren’t features that nature would necessarily select. Yet we see examples of overdesign often when it comes to engineering [8]. This implies that there is an intelligent designer behind such features. On to you Pro…….. [1] http://www.cancer.net... [2] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://news.discovery.com... [4] http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [5] https://news.ncsu.edu... [6] http://www.biochemist.org... [7] http://newgeology.us... [8] http://creation.com... [9] https://commons.wikimedia.org...