Darwinian Evolution is a Weak Theory

"nobody here believes in "Darwinian evolution" I don't know where you're getting these words from. " "Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, Stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, Inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, Survive, And reproduce. " - wikipedia "Neo-Darwinism: relating to the modern version of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Incorporating the findings of genetics. " google dictionary The reason I use the term Darwinism is to make a distinction. This is between evolution the historical event and Neo-Darwinism, A hypothesis as to why evolution occurred. Again my argument is that Neo-Darwinian theory is weak because it does not explain how genes were formed during evolution, Which was an essential component of the process. I have never argued that evolution didn't happen, Only that Darwinism is a weak explanation. "You seem to have the standard creationist view that evolution necessarily has to increase the complexity of thing. This shows that you lack an understanding of evolution. " It's true that increased complexity doesn't always provide better fitness. I never said this always has to occur. However increasing complexity is something that needs to be explained, Because it obviously happened during the course of evolution. Life started out on this planet as unicellular bacteria. We on the other hand are composed of trillions of cells, Each specialized for various functions, The vast majority of which didn't exist when life began. We are obviously more intricate than a bacterium, Therefore during evolution there was a dramatic increase in complexity and information that took place. "Nobody said new genes had to be made except for you. . . There is never a "new" gene. " Again when life began it was unicellular. The first true life form almost assuredly did not have functioning eyes. There are numerous genes that code for various specialized proteins involved in eyesight. This includes photoreceptors (see comment section for link on photoreceptor proteins). These specific proteins did not exist when evolution started, Yet at some point they came about. At the point where they were first formed they would have been considered "new" genes. There are innumerable other examples that I could use. Are you saying that all genes that exist today were already around when life started? "There are only four building blocks for a gene. . . What really happens is that the same four building blocks that we've used since the dawn of time are the same ones that we use now and the "complexity" that you see is just bigger combinations of those same 4 building blocks. So I don't have to show you a "new" gene because such a thing was never claimed to exist. " During the 1940's Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings. According to your logic it wouldn't have been considered a new story after it was written, Because it's composed of the same 26 letters that all other stories in English have been written in. You say that new genes don't exist because they all use the same 4 nucleotides, Is the gene that codes for hemoglobin not different from the gene for rhodopsin, Even though they both use different combinations of the same 4 nucleotides? I'm sorry but there isn't any sense to your logic here. "So this is just a bold assertion. Can you logically support this claim? " My claim is that Neo-Darwinism is weak because it lacks an explanation as to how new genes were formed. The proposed mechanism is mutation, To which I replied that this hypothesis lacks supporting evidence. You then asked if I can logically support this claim. That is a nonsensical request because it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, In this case evidence. The only way for this debate to move forward would be for you to provide just one article demonstrating how mutation can create new genes. You've stated that mutation in this context is an established theory, So therefore you shouldn't have a hard time finding just one source to support your stance. Do you understand the concept that it is logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist? How could I demonstrate that there isn't such evidence? The only way hypothetically I could do that would be to link every scientific article that's ever been published, And then demonstrate how each one doesn't qualify. Obviously though that is beyond impractical. It's as if you claimed there was a blender orbiting Alpha Centauri. I say that's a weak hypothesis because there's no evidence for it. You then reply by asking if I can logically support my claim. In other words can I prove that the blender doesn't exist. There's no way for me to demonstrate that, Yet that isn't positive evidence that it is in fact there. This kind of false logic is a well known fallacy. See the comment section for a link discussing this fallacy. If you look in the comment section you can see backwardseden linked a few videos. You could use one of those if you'd like to support your case. However it's your choice, It's not the responsibility of Pro to select evidence for Con. "These mutations can add proteins to an organism's genetic make up and that's all the proof I need for any type of complexity. " You merely making this claim does not count as evidence for it. I am actually Thor the thunder god. I just say that I am and that's all the proof I need. Now this was intended to be my third round argument. However it glitched out because I tried to include links, Which according to debate. Org's documents should have been possible. Anyone reading this debate to vote can go to the comment section to see how this played out. I offered Con the opportunity to re-input this debate so we could have the originally agreed upon number of rounds, But they declined. Now if they provide any articles to try to support their stance I no longer have an opportunity to respond. This is beyond infuriating and prevents a proper resolution of this debate, But this is how Con wants it played out and I can't force them to do otherwise.