Evolution: True? (Continuation)

This debate is a continuation of http://www.Debate.org... Now that we have a lot more characters and rounds we can get into real battle I suppose. I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and I will continue from his previous 13 rebuttals on his 13 arguments. 1. My opponent is tossing about this term "Complete biological theory". What is this I have to ask? Evolution is a theory that discusses, as I had previously defined, changes of frequency in the genetic pool of populations. Chemistry does not have a "complete chemical theory". Nor does architecture, physics, etc. 2. I will provide a source for genetic duplication ^1, and a source for point mutations changing amino acids ^2. 3. Those experiments are not looking for "macro-evolution" they are looking for evidence of evolution period. They did find such things i.e. the E. Coli experiment I previously mentioned in which a bacteria previously unable to consume citrate mutated and exploded in population as a result ^3. I don't think that you understand how much time it does take for these things to occur. We remained bacteria for about a 2 billion years according to the history of life ^4. 4. Where is the source saying that this had to occur within a few million years? Different chemical make you say? Here is a scientific article discuss the change ^5 but to summarize, both require the similar genetic expressions and in one case the same genetic expression NCAM but in different manners. 5. I do apologize for "cheating" as my opponent accuses me. We were limited but now that we no longer are lets look at some fossils. My opponent, with NO source called Lucy a chimpanzee. As I said its fascinating that people who deny evolution parrot this and when presented with evidence ignore it or attempt to interpret it when they do not have the trained eyes that people who have spent years studying this. Here then is a comprehensive list (with sources cited) of transitional fossils for many different phyla. ^6 6. Surprisingly it has not been under as much pressure. This is in fact an amazing thing to note in biology. Animals in the ocean are subjected to FAR less selection pressure because their environment does not change as much. Which is why going into environments such as caves or the deep sea is like looking into history itself, with creatures subjected to SUCH low environmental pressure that they resemble their ancestors from millions of years ago. Out here in the land though we are subjected to an incredibly dynamic environment that we as stated in the "Red Queen Hypothesis" have to run twice as fast just to stay in place. 7. I did not claim species evolve from "nothing" I was saying that ecological niches occur and they need to be filled. Ex. a tree unattainable to normal squirrels is an ecological niche. Therefore given enough time a squirrel will evolve that will fill that niche. Now for sources of the "Cambrian explosion" being much more of a "slow fuse". This is a selection from Donald Prothero's book discussing the Cambrian Explosion. ^7 8. I hate to say it but yes, I'm sure over the course of those MILLIONS of years there were a lot of bombardier beetles who were born with a mutation that resulted in their death. There were probably a ton of Giraffe deaths as a result of weaker heart valves. Such things are called deleterious mutations. Mutations that result in the death of the animal. Such mutations don't get factored into the gene pool because the offspring die before they can reproduce therefore contributing nothing. Those who got it right are the ones we see today. 9. Sexual selection has nothing to do with bestiality, I'm not sure where that came from honestly. Sexual selection is the selection of evolutionary traits based on the selection from the opposite sex. Such selection pressures result in complimentary traits. 10. My opponent did not define the second law of thermodynamics and its definition is here ^9. According to this source the second law of thermodynamics applies to ISOLATED systems in which no heat, work, or matter is exchanged across the boundry. So although the earth is a closed system, it is not an isolated system and therefore the second law does not apply. 11. Convergent evolution does not produce identical structures it produces structures that provide the same function but are based on what the species already had in its repertoire. A good example of convergent evolution is the bat and the bird. Both were subjected to evolutionary pressure that required flight, however the wings could not be more different and even the way they use these wings are vastly different. Another example is the whale and shark. Whales swim with the tails moving up and down, sharks with their tails side to side. Both needed to swim however both found their own ways. 12. I am going to quote and cite a more recent poll proving that 97% of scientist believe evolution has occurred either guided or not guided by a creator. "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public." ^10 13. Although my opponent has no source to say that evolutionist are saying we are increasing in species I will take his word for it. This is a matter of range. If we limit ourselves to a span of time from the the past million years. Yes I would say that the number of species is increasing. There have not been any mass extinctions that are littered through history in the past million years and there have been many ecological niches to fill. Now IF we increase the span of time to the entire HISTORY of life, then no we are not increasing. Through out the entire HISTORY of life we have lost 99.99% of species as a result of mass extinctions and time. In recent years I would be willing to say we have plenty of new species springing up! I would like to make a note which is not an ad hominem attack but merely an observation. If you look at my opponents sources you will find that MOST are from creation website and even one is from a forum post by a creationist. This is not science, it is propaganda. I would not be willing to say that creationist can't be scientist because they can and there are some very smart ones I'm sure. But I will say that my opponent does not cite scientific papers as I have a couple of times (although I will say that even the wikipedia sources I cited I checked THEIR sources and found nothing but scientific papers). This is because what he is arguing is not science, its a montra that we hear. The classic arguments of second law of thermo dynamics and arguments about no transitional fossils are played out. They have been refuted over and over again so I urge you to vote PRO because we have the real science in our hands. 1 - Zhang J (2003). "Evolution by gene duplication: an update". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18 (6): 292–8. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00033-8 1 -http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - http://www.genetichealth.com... 3 - http://www.newscientist.com... 4 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 5 - http://faculty.weber.edu... 6 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 7 - http://books.google.com... 8- http://en.wikipedia.org... 9 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 10 - http://people-