Evolution is Flawed

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I look forward to a great debate and wish you the best of luck. In this round, I will present evidence for evolution and refute my opponent’s very flawed arguments. Part 1: Responding to my Opponent’s Arguments Let’s dive right into my opponent’s arguments. Second Law of Thermodynamics This is such a common argument against evolution and yet it is flawed in so many ways: First, it misunderstands what the Law of Thermodynamics is; secondly, it misrepresents what evolution is. First, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The concept of entropy is defined as heat (in calories or Btu’s) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above “absolute zero”, the coldest temperature that can exist.[1] Consequently, heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease.[2] Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. I am at a complete loss to understand how this violates the Law of Thermodynamics. Firstly, the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight has low entropy and shines on the Earth and heat has higher entropy radiates off. This can, and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. Secondly, this confuses the difference between entropy and disorder. They are not one in the same. Although at times the two correspond, at times order increases as entropy increases.[3] Finally, in a closed system, pockets of left over entropy form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. This happens on earth all the time. Conclusion: My opponent’s criticism via the Law of Thermodynamics fails to understand what Thermodynamics is and misrepresents the Theory. Evolution and the Bat Wing My opponent fails to understand exactly what a vestigial structure is. In science, a structure does NOT have to be functionless in order to be vestigial.[4] Indeed, Charles Darwin explained vestigial structures this way: "Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not to be considered as rudimentary."[5] (Emphasis added). The proper definition of a vestigial structure, according to biology-online is thus: An organ or part which is greatly reduced from the ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.[6] (Emphasis added). So, are there any true vestigial structures? Yes. For example, dandelions reproduce without fertilization (called apomixis), yet they retain flowers and produce pollen (both are sexual organs used for sexual fertilization). Thus, the dandelions have those vestigial structures.[7] Other interesting examples include cave-dwelling arthropods that are completely blind, yet remain their eye shaft – albeit with no eyes![8] Conclusion: My opponent’s criticism fails to fully understand what is meant by a vestigial structure and ignores the fact that vestigial structures exist. Genetics This is facepalm territory here. The universe did not come from random mutations. My opponent confuses two different fields of science; namely, biology and astrophysics. Mutations have absolutely nothing to do with the origin, the creation, or the development of the universe. Secondly, most mutations are not harmful – instead, they are rather neutral – neither helping nor harming the organism.[9] Moreover, it fails to account for mutations that are beneficial; for example[10]: 1) Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon; 2) Plant breeders used mutation to induce mutations and select beneficial ones; 3) In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as ribozyme; and 4) Humans acquired a resistance to malaria via a disabling mutation of the CMAH gene.[11] Fossil Record I am debating you and not your source. In the next round, I request that you bring up any instance in which a dinosaur fossil was found mixed in with other – more modern day – creatures. As far as the “living fossils” is concerned, the ToE does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment and in a stabilizing selection, we would predict that most organisms will remain largely unchanged. Moreover, some of these so-called “living fossils” have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species in various sizes and the immune system of the horseshoe crab is quite different from that of the same species millions of years ago.[12] Please give more detail on the “missing link.” Design of Nature Evolution does not mean atheism. God can still exist alongside evolution. We are debating evolution – not atheism. Part 2: Evidence for Evolution Evidence for evolution exists in abundant amounts, but first, we need to understand what we mean by scientific evidence. In science, nothing is absolute, but we can confirm to beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientific evidence is defined as thus: Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. [13] We can formulate this logic by the following: Premise 1: Theory T predicts Observation O Premise 2: Observation O is not observed Conclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably false. Or conversely Premise 1: Theory T predicts Observation O Premise 2: Observation O is observed Conclusion: Therefore, Theory T is given added support. Evidence for evolution is abundant. For example, vestigial structures exist (see examples in Part 1) and pseudogenes exist. In fact, a mutation in CMAH pseudogene allowed humans to enjoy resistance to malaria.[14] I am out of room. I will expand on this evidence in the next round. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://www.talkorigins.org... [3] Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. et al. 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397. From http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] Fairbanks, D. (2012). “Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters.” [5] Darwin, C. “The Origin.” [6] http://www.biology-online.org... [7] http://talkorigins.org... [8] Coyne, J. (2010). “Why Evolution is True.” [9] Fairbanks, D. [10] http://www.talkorigins.org... [11] Fairbanks [12] http://www.talkorigins.org... [13] http://talkorigins.org... [14] Fairabanks.