Evolution Is Falsified

Thanks for your rebuttals! Now, on to mine. Nested Hierarchy Violation Con refers to snakes, lizards, crocodiles, birds, whales & camels as “species,” but all are taxonomical categories greater than species. None are actually species of animals according to modern classifications (that I'm aware of). Just wanted to point that out. Con argues that a clear violation of the Nested Hierarchy would be the presence of a trait arising out of the tree the same way in different locations. I already showed one! As my graphic illustrated, the same type of germ-cell formation arose the same way in different locations of the tree. For more specific examples, Con points out that the presence of any feathered mammal, reptile with opposable thumbs, or primate with a fatty hump “would therefore falsify common decent (and hence evolution).” Awesome! Here's a primate with a fatty hump, the Celebes Crested Macaque: Con requests the source for my Nested Hierarchy graphic. I actually cited the original source at the bottom right corner of the picture. For convenience, here is a direct link to it: http://www.extavourlab.com... Con has provided (what he considers as plausible) explanations for the individual arising of the same exact type of germ-cell formation in different groups of the Nested Hierarchy. However, none of his explanations actually refute my argument, which is that this constitutes a clear violation of the tree. Remember what my opponent said earlier: “So what would be a clear violation? Any trait that would require it would arise in at least 2 instances in the same way in two completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree.( … )preformation is a trait that has evolved independently in multiple branches.” With that last statement, Con effectively concedes that the trait of preformation constitutes a violation of the Hierarchy. Labeling the violation as “Convergent Evolution” and providing a hypothesis to explain its origins does not change the fact that it is a clear violation. Fossil Record Violation Let's remember what my aim is here: to demonstrate a chronological violation using fossil evidence. I did this by showing that the Archaeopteryx (whose name means “first bird”) is older than the Protarchaeopteryx (“before first bird”) according to standard fossil dating. Keep in mind how Con said, “you cannot be born before your grandfather was born; similarly, no species can arise before their common ancestors first arise.” The Protarchaeopetryx (“before first bird”) had, in Con's own words: “more primitive flight features” and was “much less aerodynamic” than the Archaeopteryx. Given this fossil evidence, the Protarchaeopetryx was the ancestor of the Archaeopteryx, yet it appears after Archaeopteryx in the fossil record! Note that I have successfully satisfied my burden here. A bird that appears more primitive (according to fossil evidence) appears after a more advanced, and therefore descendant, bird (according to fossil evidence). It's perfectly fine for Con to try to reconcile the chronological violation by hypothesizing that the two birds were from different lineages. What is not OK. is for Con to claim that I have not met my burden. I have, indeed, demonstrated a paradox using only fossil evidence, and that is all I have to do. Irreducible Complexity Con says it's tempting to dismiss my claim because it doesn't provide evidence. However, I'd like to point out that my burden appears to be proving a negative, which is a monstrous, and unfair, task. Given that, I think it's perfectly alright for me to call some trait irreducibly complex with an explanation why, and only have to posit more convincing arguments for my position than Con. Con has cited a professional's hypothesis on the subject, but it's another thing to actually provide hard evidence. So, as hard evidence that the eye is irreducibly complex, I present every single fossil ever uncovered: none of them demonstrate plausible transitional eye forms, but instead, only fully-formed eyes! For example, the Anomalocaris is supposedly over 500 million years old, yet has a complex, stalked eye with 16,000 lenses: “rivalling the most acute compound eyes in modern arthropods.”(5) In contrast, the modern house fly only has about 4,000 lenses.(6) “[E]ven a conservative estimate of acuity in Anomalocaris suggests it had better resolution than most living arthropods.”(7) That's hard evidence opposing Con's hypothesis: it's actually evidence that eyes have devolved from a complex ancestor! Back to Con! (5) http://www.nature.com... (6) http://www.flapest.com... (7) http://www.academia.edu...