Darwin's theory of evolution.

While the burden of proof is typically on the one making the claim, regardless of whether a position is mainstream, I will accept the burden of proof for this debate. I must demonstrate the invalidity of the standard Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution which is primarily characterized by biological transformation via natural selection acting on genetic mutations. While there exist unorthodox views of evolution such as punctuated equilibrium espoused by Stephen Jay Gould and others. Phylogenetic gradualism is the "mainstream" view of evolution and thus is the theory I will be arguing against.When considering the validity of a scientific model, we must first determine the viability of its mechanisms. As it were, I actually have no quarrel with most of the mechanisms which incur visible speciation. However, upon reviewing the literature concerning genetic mutations, one will find it futile to search for a single paper demonstrating the type of genetic change which would lend to the phylogenetic gradualism required for the theory. This is not to say there are a lack of papers discussing how observable changes may have allowed amoeba to evolve into humans over millions of years, but that is all one will find, a lot of conjecture. Given what we now know about genetics, the lack of evidence for genetic mutations as means for the propagation of novel genetic information is not surprising. What was once touted as vestigial "junk" in the genome of living organisms is now known to primarily consist of redundant information which ensures the robustness and continuity of extant genes. This unexpected level of complexity has proved to be quite a conundrum for evolutionary theory and certainly rings the death knell of phylogenetic gradualism via genetic mutations. The problem of redundant information, which constitutes the vast majority of an organisms genome, can be summarized by the following: to provide evolutionary change which would allow an organism to traverse the bounds of its family for example, genetic mutations would have to affect germ line mutations which would be passed on to an organism's offspring. These genes however are not only actively working against mutations via excision repair mechanisms, in which a battery of enzymes which inherently recognize the genetic mistakes painstakingly work to correct the mutations, but redundant genes insure the continuity of genetic information as even genes which are permanently affected by mutations will be corrected internally within the cell. That organisms are apparently constrained to redundant informational boundaries is evident by the fact that redundant genes cannot be affected by genetic mutations. If redundant information is immune to translation errors, organisms are thus immune to any substantial level of mutational degradation. This is not to say mutations are never passed on to offspring, but harmful mutations are relatively rare due to the multiple levels of information security measures present in genomes. As for beneficial mutations, these are even rarer, though certainly possible. However, no example of mutations, beneficial or not, have ever constituted as evidence for the addition of novel genetic information since such examples are only ever deletions, duplications, or rearrangings of existing information. Many of the beneficial mutations can also be seen as genetically intentional events triggered by environmental cues such as the example seen in E. coli bacteria digesting citrate. The issue though is not whether a mutation, however rare, can confer a survival benefit but it concerns their capacity for the induction of novel genetic information. Given that mutations are only ever corruptions of existing information and that redundant genes serve as a bounds for speciation, this would be an expectedly impossible occurrence. Mutations would need to be acting on germ cells at an exceptional rate to allow the rare event of genetic errors, and on top of this, these genetic errors would have to provide novel information in such a gradual way as to lead to a novel trait over many generations. Such mutations which provided piecemeal information would almost certainly be prevented from culminating into any sort of trait as redundant genes would work to correct them. Thus what we know about genetics demonstrates the infeasibility of phylogenetic gradualism via genetic mutations. Given that there is not even a single published paper providing evidence for the creation of novel genetic information by means of genetic copying errors, even in controlled conditions, the theory of evolution is brought into serious doubt. Without a viable mechanism for genetic change which can be supported by the scientific method, Neo-Darwinian evolution is going upstream without a paddle. We could discuss fossils and natural selection, but without a mechanism for genetic change which is required by the theory of evolution, any interpretation of fossils and examples of natural selection would both be anecdotal and an unwarranted extrapolation respectively. I will defend any of my claims in the next round. I look forward to an engaging and thoughtful dialogue. On to Pro.Referenceshttp://www.nature.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://creation.com...http://creation.com...