The Fossil Record Provides Scientific Evidence for Macroevolution

http://tinyurl.com...). Such an action clearly violates the first rule of this debate; nevertheless, I shall proceed to formulate a refutation of my opponent's contentions. Sustaining the Bipedality of Australopithecus Afarensis:My opponent quotes a passage from Forbidden Archeology listing 10 characteristics exhibited in A. Afarensis indicative of arboreality (tree dwelling), and therefore concludes that the ability of bipedal locomotion must have been absent from the species; however, such an argument is simply a non sequitur. No reputable scientist contests the fact that A. Afarensis was able to live in trees; however, simply because an organism exhibits arboreal characteristics doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it being bipedal; in fact, the position currently held by scientists (and supported by all available evidence) is that A. Afarensis possessed the ability to live both in trees and on the ground [1]. I've provided a video at the top of this post which adequately discusses the evidence for A. Afarensis bipedality. Furthermore, the entire idea of a fossil being "transitional" is that it exhibits characteristics of both a biological ancestor and its evolutionary descendents. The fact that A. Afarensis possesses both ape and human traits is entirely consistent with the position of evolution theory; therefore, I don't understand why my opponent believes he can refute the transitional status of A. Afarensis simply by pointing out its ape-like characteristics while simultaneously ignoring its human-like ones. Lastly, my opponent also asserts the non-transitional status of A. Afarensis based on claims concerning the ape-like characterisics of its jaws and teeth; besides the fact that my opponent has plagiarized such statements from the earlier mentioned Foley-Milton debate, the fact that australopithecines exhibit ape-like characteristics poses no problem for evolution theory. Again, my opponent's attempt to debunk the transitional status of A. Afarensis simply by focusing on its ape-like characteristics and ignoring its human-like ones is simply insufficient to make his case. The remaining portion of my opponent's argument consists heavily on questioning the intellectual honesty of scientists who find and identify transitional fossils. I'll leave it to the voters to decide if the majority of scientists intellectually bias and somehow collectively involved in an elaborate conspiracy to propagate evolution (particularly transitional fossils) and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Sustaining Transitional Fossils:My opponent once again raises contentions against the transitional fossils I've provided, and once again his contentions are insufficient to make his case. Homo Habilis and Neanderthals:Here my opponent argues that because the modern Mbuti people (pygmies) and Homo Habilis share comparable physical characteristics and lifestyle traits, Habilines must have been human; furthermore, my opponent oddly uses this claim to argue that Neanderthals were humans as well, despite the fact that the argument has nothing to do with Neanderthals. Not surprisingly, this is an argument my opponent must have gotten from the Foley-Milton debate, as I have been unable to find any other source which purports such a claim; therefore, I shall simply provide Foley's response to Milton when Milton made the same argument:"You haven't provided *any* evidence about pygmy brain size. .. or any of [your] other claims here about habilis, for that matter. In response to repeated requests for evidence, Milton merely evades the request and repeats his assertions [2]. "To my knowledge, Milton never did provide any evidence for his claims. Furthermore, I've already provided an image of a Habiline skull, clearly demonstrating the strong difference from humans; moreover, here is another image depicting the difference between a Neanderthal and Human skull:Figure 1.0 Provided by . http://www.koanicsoul.com...I'll leave it to the voters to decide based on an examination of the anatomical differences shown and discussed here whether or not Neanderthals and Habilines were humans. Eohippus:Here my opponent contends that despite the fact that eohippus and hyrax have completely different skulls, teeth, and tails, other characteristics indicate they are from the same "kind. " Unfortunately, "kind" is not a scientific taxonomical classification. If my opponent wishes to debate this point, he must define what a "kind" is. In any case, no scientist I know of holds the opinion that an eohippus and hyrax are the same thing. My opponent also argues that because certain horses are born with three toes, merychippus is not actually a transitional fossil, but only a demonstration of variation within the horse species; however, what my opponent has failed to explain is why no "one-toed" horses are found in the fossil record during the Miocene epoch [3]. The fossil record strongly indicates that all past horses possessed three toes; therefore, the appearance of multiple toes on modern-day horses is best explained by atavisms ("An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character [4]"). The Survival of Less Intelligent SpeciesMy opponent seems to be under the misapprehension that more intelligent species will always outlive less intelligent ones; although greater intelligence certainly does give a species the upper hand, it in no wise always guarantees their survival on an absolute scale. To say otherwise is tantamount to saying that educated people will always out-live uneducated people; such is simply not the case, as there are always exceptions. With the room I have left, I'd like to briefly address my opponent's assertion (made in the first round) that there are no fish-to-amphibian or reptile-to-bird transitional fossils. There are plenty of reptile-to-bird transitional fossils. Dr. Douglas Theobald lists a great many of them:"[Some reptile-to-bird transitional fossils include] Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others [5]. "Moreover, one prime example of the evolutionary transition from fins to legs is Tiktaalik. The University of Berkeley's website on evolution states,"Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans [6]. ". http://www.youtube.com...[1] . http://humanorigins.si.edu...[2] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[3] . http://dinosaurs.about.com...[4] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[5] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[6] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...