Evolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical Creationism

Thanks to Mishap!ICR1. BiasWhile it's true no source is fully devoid of bias, it is possible to exclude those sources most heavily skewed by bias so that only the most reasonable sources remain. In this debate, the sources that are the least reasonable are Con's. Con does not deny that the ICR is heavily influenced by ideology. That dropped point, emphasized by my earlier evidence about their lack of credibility, underscores the point that any evidence by the ICR cannot be trusted, and--possibly--should be summarily dismissed as un-scientific.I should also note than Con's source, Answers in Genesis (AIG), is also highly biased. It is a Christian apologetics organization [1]--it's whole mission is to support the literal interpretation of the Bible, NOT to engage in scientific inquiry.Con then attempts to impeach my source, Talk Origins, as being unacceptably biased. However, I would argue that it is significantly less biased than Con's sources. On the website, "there is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal." [2] About Talk Origins: "The sheer quantity of quality scientific information has led to the Talk.Origins archives being considered the Net's most significant clearinghouse of origins information out there, even being cited from time to time in science textbooks for further reading purposes. The TO archive also makes a point to link back to pages with opposing viewpoints, something not as common among creationist pages." [3] If it is cited in government textbooks, it, or its content, is likely to have been vetted by not only the authors of those textbooks, but also by the State's purchasing those textbooks. This website therefore seems vastly more credible than the three sources of Con's (ICR, AIG, CSI) that I have identified as being biased. Also note that Con has not offered any evidence to indict Talk Origins' credibility; if she does, it will most likely be from a biased Creationist website. Therefore, my source should be preferred to Con's. Even if you don't buy that Talk Origins is reliable, we can dismiss the three arguments I made using it (my preempts). If we also dismiss the arguments Con makes using her biased sources, she is left with 3 arguments. Her three arguments are from three other Creation websites that are also likely biased, but I have not had time to confirm that. So, she has three arguments (vestigiality, homologous structures, and fossils) vs. my 4 arguments (current evolution, homologous structures, vestigiality, and biochemistry). Given this match-up, I believe I am still winning this debate.2. CredentialsTomson's ideas are incorrect for reasons I'm fully prepared to go into, but I've already refuted much of the arguments on the flow already. Really, insofar as he is biased in favor of creationism--a belief he is well known for (a simple google search illustrates this, as does his affiliation with the ICR)--is findings are to be heavily doubted. As for the other author, a PhD in hydraulic engineering does NOT qualify him to speak on the topic of genetics, however much it might be sugarcoated. I would no more trust an art Professor to teach my math class as I would an engineer to teach biology. They are wholly different fields and require vastly different skillsets and knowledge bases. As for the piece where the author is unknown, this really does undermine its credibility because we simple don't know who wrote it. CSICon basically admits that this is a biased source.BiochemistryCon's analogy is bad. A more accurate analogy would be this: I have a fork and a spoon. On both, there is a logo. I assume that because both share they same logo, they come from the same company. Similar biochemistry can be seen as the logo of the common ancestor--what it has left in all of us. Certainly, biochemistry alone does not prove evolution on balance, but when taken in consideration with other factors, it points towards a common descent. Consider that scientists have, after much research, dismissed arguments regarding multiple origins (I stated this earlier, and it was never contested.) If multiple origins are improbable, we have two possibilities: (a) a common ancestor, and (b) God creating all organisms similarly. If I can show that (b) is unlikely, then, logically, we must assume (a) is the best explanation.VestigialityMy opponent seems to misunderstand my point here. I am not talking about fossils, but rather whales that are alive and well today. They have hind legs and even pelvic bones that the scientific community have determined are useless to the whales. In fact, the whales hind legs don't even connect to muscle tissue in a way that would allow them to be used; the legs are, moreover, not outwardly visible on the whale, but rather are located in side them. It's difficult to use legs as rudders or as sexual claspers as Con suggests when the legs are inside the whale's body. They are truly vestigial structures and evidence for evolution. [4]As if more evidence were needed: "The picture below on the left shows the central ankle bones...of three artiodactyls, and you can see they have double pulley joints and hooked processes pointing up toward the leg-bones. Below on the right is a photo of the hind foot of a basilosaurid. You can see that it has a complete ankle and several toe bones, even though it can't walk. The basilosaurid astragalus still has a pulley and a hooked knob pointing up towards the leg bones as in artiodactyls, while other bones in the ankle and foot are fused. From the ear bones to the ankle bones, whales belong with...other artiodactyls." [5]Con drops that her source is unreliable.Homologous StructuresThe appendix example falls flat. We learned more about the appendix as our scientific knowledge grew. In theory, as our knowledge grows, we should become more accurate, if Con's example is any indicator. So, as our knowledge of animals grows, we should be getting more accurate (not less accurate) in our understanding of our origins. We've moved farther and farther away from creationism; thus, as we know more and as we get more accurate, we more often affirm evolution. Also, one cherry-picked example does not defeat the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. [6]As for the gland example, Con misconstrues the issue. In a species, genders may be similar, but have organs that function differently (a male gland operates differently than a female gland.) Yet, both males and females have the same gland, indicating a genetic and evolutionary closeness. As obvious as it seems, male humans are related to female humans, and our genotypical and phenotypical similarities affirm this.The argument from homology isn't that the organs have to work the same way (Con's misunderstanding), it's that the organs have to be so similar in structure as to imply a common relation. A bat's wing isn't used like my hand, yet their structure is so strikingly similar that we can assume so distant relation exists. It's almost like how a child resembles their parents. Please look to my previous arguments for more on this topic. Ultimately, Con essentially drops my points.CURRENT EVOLUTIONJust because I didn't cite a source does not make my conclusion any less valid, as long as it was logically support. Con never rebuts my logic at any point in her rebuttals. She drops the content of my argument.Yes, we have never seen a fish turn into another animal because that's not how evolution works. It's a series of small changes leading overtime (see R3) that produce the macro differences. It would take thousands of years to witness such a change.PREEMPTSThermodynamicsNo, it wasn't simply asserted. See my R2. The law isn't about complexity. It's about heat. It says: "No natural process has as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler to a warmer object." [7]FossilsThe quote that Con cites does not refer to the specific fossils I cited, but rather to other fossils my sources discussed from the Silurian and Devonian periods. The quote does not undermine the validity or worthiness of the fossils I mentioned in R3.Con drops my rebuttal to her claims re: Archaeopteryx.MutationsMutations provide variance. Con's sources agree that they can give organisms new properties that help them survive. Over time, a series of changes like this (e.g. gradually increasing mental capacity) can produce new things (e.g. complex brains.) I'm sorry I couldn't cover this more.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://rationalwiki.org...4 - http://thinkingscifi.files.wordpress.com...5 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...7 - http://www.calpoly.edu...