E v. C

Firstly, the rules state that no truth value is assumed without further evidence. I take this to mean that both debaters have to argue from first principles. I would like to remind voters to vote based solely on the arguments that will be presented forthwith, and not based on preconceived ideas, since this is a from-first-principle debate. In keeping with the definitions, I am assuming a dichotomy in which there can be only two logical options. Creation (YEC), or Evolution. Arguing against one gives support for the other. In my opening arguments, I will not present something as though it only supports my position. Instead, I will try to present arguments that compare the two models in regard to the evidence. I will only present two arguments in this first round, I might introduce new arguments in round two. The first argument I will present is in regards to the genome. C1: Genetic Degradation The genome is known to be highly degradational. In fact, the vast majority of mutations is known to be degradational. Nachman has shown that [1] there are about 175 mutation events per generation. These mutation events do not calculate the number of mutated nucleotides per generation, but the number of events per generation. In fact, Sanford has shown that mutations, calculated in nucleotide changes per generation, is in the thousands. The number of degradational mutational changes in nucleotides per generation outweigh the beneficial mutations, counted in the same way. [2] (10:00) Even without accounting for genetic noise, which prevents natural selection, most degradational mutations cannot be selected against. This is because the degradational effect of each single nucleotide is so small as to be almost negligible. This is much like small single letter changes in the above paragraph. Individually, they do not much degrade the information I am presenting. Combined, however, their effects is devastating in a way that would lead to extinction. So much so that evolutionary geneticist researcher has estimated just from mutation and recombination rates in the genome that humans would die out in the next 20 million years (Starting 2006) [3]. The paper in [3] only calculates Muller’s ratchet from the mitochondrial chromosome, which undergoes recombination during reproduction. When the entire coding portions of the genome is considered, ignoring the regulatory portions of the genome, the time to extinction is reduced drastically, as shown by Sanford in [4]. I hope the readers are still with me here. The second reason why degradational mutations cannot be selected against is that they are intrinsically tied with the few beneficial mutations through a phenomena known as linkage blocks. This theory states that during recombination, whole sequences of genes are “linked” together rather than each individual gene being separately passed down to the next generation. This brief introduction to genetic degradation (Of which there is strong evidential support, as seen by my sources) leads us to consider two things. The first is the question of which of the two models predict degradation. The evolutionary model cannot predict degradation. In fact, it predicts just the opposite! From the theory of common descent, we should expect that we would see more beneficial mutations than degradational mutations. (Note: beneficial and degradational do not relate at all to the environment, but are contextual strictly within the genome. See [5]) If there were more degradational than beneficial mutations, then it would be impossible for evolution to occur. In fact, it would not be possible for stasis to occur either (See next argument). This then brings us to the comparative of Creation. Under this model, it is assumed that degradation has occurred since the (supposed) Fall of man. (I will put (supposed), and such words, in parenthesis around supposed time events of both models to ensure no truth value assumptions) From this view, genetic degradation is consistent, and is in fact a prediction, of the model. So the evidence is much better explained under the Creation model for this topic. C2: Living Fossils In this argument, I will present one organism as an example. The others will not be mentioned yet. This animal is known as an Ostracod, and is “by far the most common arthropods in the fossil record” [6:9] Fossils of this animal have been found from the Cambrian to the present. This is a stasis of 425 million years [7]. Within this time period, all the most common organisms, like fish, mammals, reptiles, et cetera, have all evolved. All other than this little “seed shrimp. ” This little piece of factual evidence (Of which there are many more similar examples) forces us to do a comparison. Evolution predicts change over time. Perhaps in the case of this shrimp, it was so well adapted that it could survive without ever needing to change, thus exhibiting “evolutionary stasis. ” This is a plausible answer, the only problem with this is that it makes the model unsinkable. To put it in simple unforgiving terms, I will quote Dr Werner, from an interview in [8]. “If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils. ’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science. ”[8]The second point to note is that even if stasis had occurred, genetic degradation would have caused the extinction of that organism (population). On the Creation model however, stasis is no problem, since from this model, organisms can never become something other than their “kind,” which God (supposedly) created. Thus, it should not be expected from this model that change so drastic as that from a small wormy creature to the current diversity we see would happen. To Pro for this first round. I hope that I’ve not assumed anything outside of first principles. (Well, not so first, I’m not a textbook)1. . http://www.genetics.org...2. . http://www.youtube.com...3. . http://journals.cambridge.org...4. . http://www.amazon.com...5. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...7. . http://creation.com...8. . http://creation.com...