The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis

"Why do I have to bear the Burden of Proof? " "If you wanted to argue from this standpoint you should clarify in Round 1 that Con has to take on the full burden of proof. " The title of the debate is "The Darwinian Mechanism for Evolution is a Weak Hypothesis". My opening statement was "It is claimed that mutation is responsible for the creation of new genes during the course of evolution. This is a weak hypothesis because it lacks supporting evidence. " The topic of the debate was established in the title. The first sentence in Round 1 clarified what I meant specifically by "Darwinian Mechanism". The second was my supporting point, Which is that this lacks evidence. These points were all laid out from the beginning. However you seem surprised that Con is expected to provide evidence for the Darwinian mechanism? And that by asking for it I am somehow moving the goalposts? It should be obvious that since my only supporting point is that there isn't evidence, That the way to counter it is to show that there is. However so far you have refused to provide anything concrete, Everything up to this point has been conceptual, Without hard data referenced for support. You are the one actually attempting to move the goalposts. Even though I stated at the very beginning that the topic of the debate is a critique of the Darwinian mechanism, You want me to propose some other hypothesis and instead move the discussion to a defence of that. You are literally fulfilling the definition of moving the goalposts, So the fact that you are accusing me of the fallacy is more than a little ironic. "My opponent's strategy is to hide behind a position that cannot be attacked (because your position on what causes evolution is not stated) while critiquing all of my points. " I have a position that can be attacked. I claim the Darwinian mechanism is a weak hypothesis because it lacks evidence. All you have to do is demonstrate how mutation can create new genes and my position falls apart. I made it clear in the title of the debate as well as in the opening statement that the topic was going to be the Darwinian mechanism, Specifically whether mutation can create new genes. Your insistence that the topic shift to some other hypothesis goes against how the debate was laid out from the start. If you didn't want to defend the position of Con then you shouldn't have accepted the debate. "I've shown that thousands of plants have been intentionally mutated and artificially evolved with the Darwinian mechanism. " You made this point before and I already responded to it. To reiterate - Those induced plant mutations look like good candidates for evidence to support your stance. However you'd have to provide a specific case study which shows the actual genetics at work. This would demonstrate whether a new gene was made or not. Changes to features of an organism can occur without the formation of new genes. "I feel that my arguments can stand on their own simply because my opponent hasn't defended their position by providing a better explanation for why evolution occurs. I'll post more specific references to biological evolution next round. " So because I am sticking to the pre-defined topic rather than changing to what you want it to be, You feel that frees you from coming up with actual evidence to support your stance? I really hope you come up with something concrete this next round because it's the last opportunity we have. All the examples you've given for how mutation can create new genes are purely conceptual. Again the article you provided to support these concepts was just a review article that only had one primary source. And I already explained how that source didn't qualify as evidence. "Here's a great example of non-biological Darwinism in action. The "Evolutionary Algorithm" is an approach to training neural networks to do things like recognize faces or read handwriting. It uses mechanisms inspired by biological evolution, Such as reproduction, Mutation, Recombination, And selection. " You're veering off. Show me how mutation can create new genes. In a biological context. As stated in the opening argument that's what this whole debate is about and you've done everything but address it specifically with evidence. This is the third debate I've initiated on this topic now, And not one person has brought forth a scientific study that even attempts to show how mutation can create new genes. I'll ask you directly. Do you think mutation is capable of creating new genes? If so then show me one primary source that demonstrates how.