Creationism(Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

What is evolution? : What you have defined here is natural selection which neither of us contest. I have said this in my argument that although speciation occurs, the genetic changes that causes such changes are degenerative. Natural selection over long periods of time does not equal evolution that changes dinosaurs to birds or vice versa because the changes are heading in the wrong direction as all species as a whole need new genetic information introduced for this process to continue. You claim that polyploidy provides the necessary mechanism to add such information, however I will prove that such is not the case. Why polyploidy does not provide new genetic information: Regarding polyploidy, one can make an analogy that disproves it as a mechanism that adds functional genetic information. If If I repeat words in in my my my sentence, does it improve improve it? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? Do I tell you more if I repeat this sentence? As seen in these cases, repetition degrades the information I typed as they disrupt the communication of that information. (To be fair, the repetition does sort of improve the argument because of the emphasis but only in the context of the argument. If I used such tactics in a different debate, I would most assuredly be penalized for spelling & grammar) If a student submits two copies of a paper to a professor, does it give him/her higher marks on the paper. It most certainly does not and could even cause lower grades. For example, if the minimum page requirement is four and the student submitted two copies of a two page essay to meet the requirement, he/she will most likely be marked down for not presenting four pages of unique information. There is a reason why humans are not polyploid is because duplicating all of our chromosomes would be fatal to us. There are humans with additional copies of certain chromosomes but these are seen to result in several genetic abnormalities like Down Syndrome. [1] Consider the problem I have pointed out with genetic entropy and the fact that most if not all mutations are deleterious. Now picture a genome that has been accumulating such mutations. Does making two, three, or even thousands of copies of the genome make things better. With each copy of the genome you are also carrying over the bad mutations that have accumulated. Human Chromosome Two: Con’s argument for the fusion of the chromosomes are based on flawed logic that by looking at the supposed beginning and the end result as definite proof of the fusion process therefore definite proof that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Let me make an analogy with a marathon. Premise 1: A runner has been observed at the beginning of the marathon Premise 2: The runner has been observed at the end of the marathon Conclusion: The runner definitely ran the course of the marathon to get to the finish line. As seen here there are definitely other ways the runner could have ended up at the finishing line and whether the person ran at all or not can be questioned. However, Con’s argument falls apart for other reasons too. The chromosome fusion model makes predictions about the state of human chromosome two that are not consistent with observations today. If you look at Con’s diagram, if the two chromosomes have fused, then there should be evidence of remnants of a once-functioning centromere on the chromosome. However, there is little to no evidence that such centromere ever existed. The only sort of evidence that a centromere used to be there is the presence of alphoid sequences which every ape and human centromere possess however is not definite evidence as alphoid sequences are highly variable and are not exclusive to centromeres. [2] Another prediction that the fusion model makes but fails is that where the site of the fusion is, there should be no functional genes as you can imagine mashing human and ape genes together would make them non-functional. However, an analysis of the fusion site shows that multiple functional genes exist at the proposed fusion site [3]. Also take into consideration that mutations cannot create function information in the form of functional genes for reasons I have pointed out in my previous argument (See Genetics). Even if Con is right that polyploidy is a mechanism to create functional information (Which in this rebuttal I have proven isn’t the case), polyploidy won’t work here as you can’t duplicate a specific piece of a chromosome without duplicating the entire chromosome. Classifying animals: Animals aren’t classified by their evolutionary origins as the modern system for classifying animals was created by Carl von Linnaeus (1707-1778) long before Darwin conceptualized evolution. [4] Con brings up homologous structures as definite evidence of common ancestry between animals. However, such scientific reasoning falls under historical science as opposed to observational science. With observational science, you use repeatable and observable experiments to come to conclusions using the scientific method that we are all familiar with. However, with historical science, repeatable experiments don’t apply when making conclusions but rather looking at evidence today and interpret them to try to recreate the past. As famous Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould once said, “Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory”. [5] The evolutionists that look at such structures interpret them as the result of common ancestry under the preconceived notion that evolution is true beyond doubt. On the other hand, creationists would look at such structures and see them as similar designs from an intelligent Creator. Unless you or someone else was there observing such organisms for the painstaking millions of years, there is no way to truly tell who is right. Just to be clear, it is not just creationists that make this distinction between observation and historical science as there are also evolutionists who are willing to make this distinction. Atheistic evolutionist Harvard Professor, Dr E.O. Wilson said: "If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history"how it came to be made and its journey thus far." [6] He is not alone as prominent biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." [7] Pertaining to your question as to how the created “kinds” fall under the taxonomic rank system, I provide you with the following definition: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. Now I realize that such definition isn’t one that fits the taxonomic system and I can see understandably why Con wants a line drawn as to where created kinds fall therefore falsifiable if say such line was placed in Genus then if Con finds an example contrary disproves such. However, the important issue at hand is not how much change natural selection can do in the grand scheme of the taxonomic system but that such change is heading the wrong way for evolution. [8] Speciation: This is not necessarily a concession as I’m arguing that such mechanisms actually work against evolution for reasons highlighted in Round 2 (Genetics). Here is an analogy that I think better illustrates what is going on: We are at the Chicago stop on a New York ---- San Francisco train line. We both agree that the train is working, only that you argue that because the train is working, it is heading towards New York, whereas I’m arguing that the train is going in the wrong direction to San Francisco.Sources:[1] https://www.nichd.nih.gov...[2] http://creation.com...[3] Fan, Y. et al., Gene content and function of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in human chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions, Genome Research 12:1663–1672, 2002.[4] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...[5]. Gould, S.J. (1941-2002), Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, New York, NY, pp. 161-162, 1977[6] Wilson, E. O., From so Simply a Beginning, Norton, 2006, pg. 12 [7] Mayr, Ernst (1904"2005), Darwin"s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009. [8] http://creation.com...