Evolution (pro) vs. Creation (con)

Thank you for your swift reply. I am going to defend my opening statements and then refute your case for Creationism. I. Phylogenetic Tree of Life The Phylogenetic Tree of Life is a genetic classification amongst known species. According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. If every living species descended from an original ancestral species that had the four characteristics of life, then all living species today should have those functions. More importantly, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions and we should be able to objectively classify all living organisms in taxonomy. Phylogenetics is the scientific discipline concerned with describing and reconstructing patterns of genetic relationships amongst species and amongst higher taxa. The Tree of Life is a way of visually representing the past evolutionary history of life. My opponent has several qualms with this evidence for common descent and I will explain why his rebuttals fail. Firstly, my opponent claims it is based upon inferences and supposition. However, an inference is not an educated guess. Indeed, an inference is the act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence. For example, if you hear a loud crashing sound, your house shakes, and you run into the living room and see a car there and a large hole in the wall, you infer that there was an accident. The only suppositions are those of reasonable people; we go on the working assumption that the universe behaves according to rules. Second, my opponent states it does not provide with any fossils. However, the pattern of nested hierarchies in the modern Phylogenetic tree of life demonstrates common descent via modification. The lack of transitional fossils or fossils in general, does not disprove evolution. We should not expect that EVERY organism that has ever lived will fossilize. Indeed, for any organism to be fossilized, it must be preserved and buried very fast under immense pressure (Fairbanks). [1] What solid facts are not inferences? We have not seen a complete orbit of Pluto around the sun, though we INFER that it makes revolutions around the sun. To show how important phylogenetic analyses are. There have been numerous cases in which there have been criminal courts convictions because of the phylogenetic analysis (Albert, Wahlberg and Leitner) and phylogenetic reconstruction are admitted as legal testimony. In fact, it has been used in medicine. Evolutionary medicine seeks to explain the nature of disease in light of evolutionary theory (Abu-Asab, Chaouchi and Amri). My opponent then states that there are gaps between every fossil; therefore evolution is false. First, we are lucky to have any fossils at all given the pressure that is needed to create them. Moreover, even if not a single corpse has ever been fossilized, the theory of common descent will still hold (Dawkins). Your link to the new speices did not work. I will not respond until I can view the full article. Thank you. II. Evidence from the body I have presented several cases from the body that show that evolution via common descent is confirmed over creationism. A. Remnants of the Past A-1. Vestigial structures My opponent’s entire case against vestigial structure is that the structure has function; therefore, it is not a vestigial structure. However, I already refuted this in the opening statements. I stated “[c]ontrary to creationist claims, a structure can severe a function and still be vestigial.” My case therefore remains standing. My opponent’s case for the ostrich is that it serves to balance the ostrich during a run; therefore it is not vestigial. Once more, it fails to take into account that structures that are vestigial can still serve a purpose; they are simply rudimentary or reduced in function. Indeed, as Charles Darwin himself puts it (Darwin): “Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not be considered as rudimentary.” Ostrich wings are not that it lacks any function whatsoever, but that it is rudimentary wing powerless for flight. The functions that my opponent cited is akin to a human hammering tacks with a computer keyboard (Theobald). A-2. Atavism My opponent cites my atavism case as it is a pseudotail and not a true tail. In other words, it may be no more than tissue covering the lower end of the spinal column. This is false in so many ways. Their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails and not true tails (which I’ve cited happens, this has not gone refuted). Apologies, but I’m out of time/room. I’ll respond in more detail in the next round. [1] This explains why the vast majority of fossils are that of marine animals. Bibliography Abu-Asab, Mones, Mohamed Chaouchi and Hakima Amri. "Evolutionary medicine: A meaningful connection between omics, disease, and treatment." Pubmed (2008). Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;. Albert, J., et al. "Analysis of a rape case by direct sequencing of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 pol and gag genes." J Virol (1994): 68: 5918-24. Print. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1859. Print. Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 2009. Print. Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmerst: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print. Theobald, Douglas. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. 16 April 2012. Website. 22 August 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org...;.