Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

Sustaining Protein Functional Redundancy:Responding to the evolutionary evidence of protein functional redundancy, my opponent asserts that if such a thing truly provided scientific support for evolution, we would observe an unwavering consistency in the amount of variation within each species' cytochrome c sequence correlating to the standard phylogenetic tree; therefore, because we don't always observe such a thing, my opponent claims that protein functional redundancy actually serves as evidence against evolution.However, what my opponent has unfortunately failed to realize is that genetics is statistically probabilistic (in other words, when it comes to genetics, nothing can be determined with absolute certainty, but rather must be determined based on probabilities [1]); this biological truth has caused Dr. Douglas Theobald to remark, "Because genetics is stochastic, the theory of common descent does not predict that phylogenetic trees made with single genes will perfectly match other phylogenetic trees—they must be similar, but not necessarily identical [2]."Quite frankly, the fact of probabilistic genetics shouldn't be a foreign concept to anyone. For example, consider the following quote from "Phylogenetics and the Origin of Species:""Gene trees are not equivalent to species trees: from simple Mendelian genetics we know that genes segregate individually, and that throughout time individual genes do not necessarily follow organismic genealogy. An obvious example is the fact that while you may have brown eyes, your child may have the genes for blue eyes—but that does not mean your child is not your descendant, or that your brown-eyed children are more closely related to you than your blue-eyed children. Including multiple genes in the analysis is a solution to this conundrum [3]."Again, because some functionally redundant proteins are uniformly varied while others are not, my opponent asserts that evolution does not actually predict similarities in functionally redundant proteins, but rather simply accommodates them; this criticism was addressed by Dr. Douglas Theobald when he stated:"There is nothing inconsistent with a uniform rate and nonuniform results. That is basic statistics. As a very simple example, in...quarter flipping, the rate of 'heads' is exactly 0.5 heads per flip. This rate is exactly constant. However, there is nothing unusual (or 'amorphous') about flipping five heads in a row, or five tails in a row...Such results are expected if coin flipping is a stochastic process, as it is...It is rather presumptuous to label a theory "amorphous", when said theory simply follows basic laws of mathematics [4]."Therefore, when we take into account basic genetics and statistics, what we observe when comparing the functionally redundant proteins of various species is perfectly consistent with what evolution theory predicts.Sustaining Atavisms:In an attempt to rebut my statements concerning atavisms, my opponent makes the assertion that what "evolutionists" mistake for human tails are actually nothing more than outgrowths of skin; to support this claim, my opponent states that the alleged human tails lack any standard characteristics typical of an actual tail.Despite his claims, however, my opponent couldn't be further from the truth, as what he is speaking of are simply pseudo-tails, not true tails. In all actuality, there are more than 100 documented medical cases of human tails, and only less than one third of well-documented cases are considered pseudo-tails [5]. So what is a true human tail? As Dr. Douglas Theobald states:"The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands...True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states...although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae...However, caudal vertebrae are not a necessary component of mammalian tails. Contrary to what is frequently reported in the medical literature, there is at least one known example of a primate tail that lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the "Barbary ape") [6]."For those particularly skeptical, photos of a true human tail can be seen on Anatomy Atlases' medical website at http://tinyurl.com....(CAUTION: Although medical photos, I find it suitable to inform the readers that the photos presented within the provided link contain imagery which some may consider inappropriate.) My opponent furthermore attempts to dismiss vestigial structures as evidence for evolution by claiming that such structures perform a function; such an assertion is the result of nothing more than a misunderstanding of the biological definition of "vestigial." Quite simply, "vestigial" does not always mean that a particular structure has lost all function; rather, the word can also refer to a structure which has diminished in its function or taken on a whole new function altogether. The fact that certain vestigial structures still retain some form of function does not at all detract from the fact that such structures are indeed vestigial.Sustaining Ontogeny:In responding to this portion of my evidence, my opponent asked me several questions; therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will be quoting his inquires in bold and subsequently responding to them piece by piece."How do you objectively measure similarities of various ontogenies?"Using the standard phylogenetic tree, it's quite simple to expect which similarities we should and shouldn't observe in various ontogenies; for example, because we know sharks did not descend from land-dwelling organisms, we can confidently assume that we will never observe hind-legs on a shark fetus (or any land-dwelling characteristic for that matter), as we do with dolphins."What aspects of an organism's evolutionary history will be reflected in its ontogeny, and why those aspects and not others?"The past evolutionary aspects of an organism which will be observed in its ontogeny are those characteristics which are consistent with its position on the standard phylogenetic tree. As to why certain aspects of an organism's evolutionary history are observed in its ontogeny while others are not is simply a matter of how an organism's particular process of fetal development evolved; it's as simple as that."[If inconsistencies are found between ontogeny and the standard phylogenetic tree], is revising the phylogenies also an option?"Obviously if we were to observe something in ontogeny that presented a clear contradiction against the standard phylogenetic tree, a serious re-evaluation of that organism's particular ancestry would need to be considered. That's how science works -- it continues to study and discover, and when it finds a mistake, adjustments are made accordingly. All fields of science do that.As to the falsifiability of ontogeny, it's as simple as predicting to find evolutionary aspects in an organism's ontogeny that are consistent with its position on the standard phylogenetic tree -- ontogeny would be falsified if something contradicted that prediction. Hitherto, ontogeny has done nothing but support evolution.I'll try to address your fruit fly argument in the next round, as I've sadly ran out of room.[1] www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html[2] Ibid.[3] Ibid.[4] Ibid.[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...[6] Ibid.