Evolution is not the best scientific model for the origin of species

Opening Statements Pro has proposed Constructal Law as being better suited than evolution for describing the origin of species. In the opening statement, Pro focused his argument not on the origin of species but on morality. I'm having trouble finding any good web references to Constructal Law, but there's always Wikipedia [6]. As I have a lack of sources and Pro failed to properly address the topic of the debate, my rebuttal is notably short. Constructal Law The formulation of Constructal Law is as follows: "For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it" [7]. One of the biggest criticisms of Constructal Law is its vague formulation [6]. This formulation must be interpreted. It neither defines flow nor easier access. Consequently, it isn't testable. To further complicate testing the law, it's author claims, "It says nothing about minimum, optimum, end design, or destiny" [8]. For example, how does the law apply to a river of flowing water? All possible outcomes may be predicted. If the river gets longer, then there is more flow, because the river holds more water. If it gets shorter, it is easier for the water to get from the source to the destination, because it requires less distance to do so. In reality, a river will both become longer and shorter based on its current construction and a list of influencing factors [7]. This issue becomes even more obfuscated on the issue of the origin of species. The interpreter of the Constructal Law must define what physical entity is flowing. Let us assume evolution took place and began with a single organism. If one were to go back in time without knowledge of the future diversity of species, what would the law predict? Arguably, one could predict that the increase of life is flowing, thus the single celled organism will eventually maximize its volume over the surface of the earth. The eventual diversity of species is not predicted. This is because information is a metaphysical construct, and not a physical one. To clarify, there is a physical medium for information, but the information itself is metaphysical. A clear example of this comes from cryptology. An encoded message contains information, but only an intelligent interpreter can access that information. The encoded message is physical, but the information itself is not. Unless the Constructal Law applies to metaphysical objects, it does not apply to the information required to produce new forms of life, thus the law does not include a prediction of speciation. Instead, the law requires the theory of evolution to exist independently in order to explain the origin of species. If the law requires the theory of evolution, then it does not provide a better predictive model for the origin of species. Closing Statements I never heard of Constructal Law before this debate, so I'm glad Pro brought it up. I do not claim to know the law enough to say it does not address my criticisms, but in terms of this debate, they have not been addressed so far. Pro's sources have shown that there is a reputable scientist who promotes this law. I will remind Pro that to base his argument on the word of an expert is an appeal to authority fallacy. He must also be able to show that his expert witness has valid arguments pertinent to the topic of the debate. Sources 6) http://en.wikipedia.org... 7) http://wattsupwiththat.com... 8) http://on-memetics.blogspot.com...