Evolution is not supported by science or evidence

Pro recites 3 arguments I make (there were more - he has dropped the rest I presume) - his rebuttals are not the smoking gun that takes down the mass evidence towards evolution however. Pro jumps in at pseudogenes and unfortunately makes the same errors repeated commonly by creationists, fuelled by a misunderstanding of what pseudogenes are (more commonly called junk DNA) and what biologists posit about them. Let's be clear from the outset. Biologists *do not* argue that all pseudogenes serve no purpose. This is far from the case. We can see Pro's case is based upon this very assumption - find a purpose and you somehow destroy the notion of pseudogenes. Not at all. A pseudogene is a gene that has been duplicated (see R1) and one of the copies becomes degraded by mutation to the point of being non-functional with regard to *protein coding*. The additional copy may take on a new function (neofunctionalisation), or the two copies may split the original function (subfunctionalisation). There is a large difference between non coding and non functional. [1][2] Gene regulation, chromosomal structural maintenance, splicing, etc., all involve sequences other than protein-coding exons; it is still a minority however. [3][4] So let's get more explicit - Pro's argument basis is that there is a universal function for non-coding DNA which somehow disproves evolution (it doesn't even if it were true - that's irrelevant here though). Apart for the error of his argument itself (above) we can see there are multiple issues for those that try to formulate such a claim. Take for example the onion, Allium cepa, a plant with a genome size of about 17 pg (picograms). Homo sapiens, has a genome size of around 3.5 pg. Clearly a universal function for non-coding DNA clear is difficult with such genomic discrepancies (not to mention the fallacy of composition). [5][6] Let's look even deeper; Pro's example. The evolution of and functional purpose of the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene in mice. You will note the lack of hysteria at having evolution supposedly unravel before them. [7][8] Argument two of Pro is that an animal living cell cannot function without mitochondria, therefore no animal living cell could have existed without mitochondria, therefore evolution is false (non sequitur but again, irrelevant). Fortunately for us that is not the case. Firstly, prokaryote cells are distinct from eukaryotes in that they lack membrane internal features such as a nucleus in addition to other features of which mitochondria may be one i.e. we have functioning cells that do not require mitochondria, so that's not the immediate issue.[9] Secondly, the most probable and most evidentiary line as to the inclusion of mitochondria and animal DNA is endosymbiosis. Upon both heterotrophic and photosynthetic eukaryotes having evolved, the former repeatedly assimilated the latter (autotrophs). This still occurs today (many animals engulf alga). Chloroplasts by engulfing photosynthetic eukaryotes gain mitochondrial DNA (secondary endosymbiosis). Endosymbiotes now, cannot be cultured away from their host (hence Pro's argument I presume). [10][11] An example: cryptomonads are the evolutionary result of a non-photosynthetic eukaryotic by engulfing a red alga by endocytosis. [12] Pro's third argument is that mutations simply cannot occur, that the checks made upon transcription result in error free results. This is simply false. For Pro's case to be true, no population shifts would ever occur, no changes in the genome would result and all the evidence contrary has been made up. Mutations occur, they can result in speciation. [13][14][15] In Pro's world these either do not exist or he must account for them in another manner. See R1 for the link to evidence of natural selection as well. See R1 sources for the basis of mutations (4 types). An in depth explanation is here. [16] Yes, when transcribing, errors may be fixed and there are mechanisms for that purpose. It is not infallible however and errors occur. Pro's final argument is unrelated to any of mine. I'll address it quickly anyway. Transitional forms is something of a misnomer. All species are regarded as ‘transitional' i.e. they have the genetic freedom to diverge and have diverged from ancestral forms. Nothing about evolution says when they will, nor if they do at what speed it will occur. If you wish for morphological evidence of change, look to the natural selection reference in R1. There are many others documented, here are a few more examples. [17][18][19][20][21] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com... [3]http://www.ndsu.edu... [4]http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com... [5]http://www.springerlink.com... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org... [8] http://www.genetics.org... [9]http://library.thinkquest.org... [10]http://www.dls.ym.edu.tw... [11]http://www.dls.ym.edu.tw... [12] http://tolweb.org... [13]http://www.gate.net... [14]http://www.gate.net... [15]http://www.weizmann.ac.il...(69)TokurikiTawfikScience2009.pdf [16]http://www.nature.com... [17]http://www.newscientist.com... [18]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [19]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [20]http://homepages.ed.ac.uk... [21]http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu...