The Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain All Organisms.

<<< PRO’s BURDEN OF PROOF >>> At the beginning of my final round, I would like to remind readers that PRO bears the burden of proof in this debate. In his introductory round, he stated that “the theory of evolution is an ineffective method of explaining life on this earth” abd that he would “disprove evolution in this debate.” My opponent claims he was not trying to “disprove evolution,” but it is clear from his opening round that he adopted that burden. If, after reading the debate and my final round, it is clear to you that my opponent has not disproven evolution or shown that it is an ineffective method of explaining life, then he has not succeeded and you must vote for CON. <<< REBUTTAL AGAINST PRO >>> In this final rebuttal, we return to some previously addressed issues and encounter at least one new issue – the DNA code. 1. Rebuttal to :: The increasing number of recently discovered complex systems makes evolution unlikely My opponent argues that the increasing discovery of new and complex systems makes evolution unlikely. He argues that scientists are constantly required to speculate as to the evolutionary history of these systems. I am disappointed my opponent has continued this line of argument. It is a quintessential “god in the gaps” claim. It should be patently clear to everyone that as we discover new organisms and new biological systems, that we will not immediately have well-developed explanations for how they evolved. This gap in scientific understanding has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory, and has everything to do with the fact that these systems have just been discovered and have not yet undergone extended, rigorous scientific study. My opponent’s argument is a non-starter and should be unceremoniously dismissed. 2. Rebuttal to :: Evolution cannot explain how “lock-and-key” relationships between proteins evolved My opponent previously argued that evolution could not explain lock-and-key relationships between proteins. Last round, I noted that my opponent was incorrect. I explained the process by which these relationships develop via evolution, and I pointed to several well-known studies that revealed how this process occurs with real proteins in real organisms. My opponent has either modified or clarified his argument and stated that evolution cannot explain “how the bond was initiated in the first place.” Evolution, of course, can explain the initiation of “lock-and-key” relationships, but I apologize if I did not make clear in my previous rebuttal. So, I already explained in the previous round how protein interactions can progressively become “tighter” and lead to “lock-and-key” relationships, and provided scientific evidence of this occuring.[1] But how do protein interactions begin in the first place? This is a complicated issue, but I will do my best to distill it into simple, comprehensible ideas. All proteins, by their nature, will have what are called non-specific binding interactions with other proteins. This is because proteins within the cell are crowded and proteins, due to their composition of amino acids, have a variety of electrostatic charges and hydrophobic (water-hating) or hydrophilic (water-loving) regions. These regions, along with the three-dimensional structure of the protein, affect what the protein will interact with. Now, imagine that we have two proteins. One protein with a negatively charged region might bump into a positively charged region of another protein, these regions could briefly stick together, and then separate apart. This happens all the time in the cell, but it’s not truly a protein interaction. So how do we get specific protein interactions? Well, one of the previous proteins I discussed could get a mutation in its positively charged region. That mutation could have no effect, or it might increase the charge or change the structure to make it more likely to loosely bind with the other protein. If the binding between those two proteins has a survival benefit, that mutation will be passed on to the next generation, and further mutations may later occur and be passed on through natural selection – leading to the creation of a protein interaction.[2] 3. Rebuttal to :: The machinery involved in the assembly of complex systems like the flagella make evolution unlikely My opponent states that “the assembly of a complex, interlocking system is unlikely due to the meticulous requirements of such formations. It is the machinery involved … that make random assembly illogical.” First, I would like to point out that evolution does not claim assembly of these systems is random. It is not. In fact, it is highly regulated and controlled. The reason it is controlled is because evolutionary pressures have demanded that it be controlled. Second, and more importantly, my opponent is continuing his complexity argument, even if he does not admit it. He says the evolution of a complex system “is unlikely due to the meticulous requirements of such formations.” In my mind, “the meticulous requirements of such formations” is simply an alternative way of restating the word “complexity.” For a system to be complex, it must have many pieces in the right places. My opponent has merely defined complexity in longer terms and has provided no objection to why evolution could not create such systems. Moreover, in the previous round I explained that evolution could create complex systems and that numerous studies had demonstrated that fact. 4. Rebuttal to :: DNA is a code and every code was created by a mind, therefore evolution is false My opponent argues that DNA is a code and it therefore could not have evolved because no code exists that wasn’t created by a mind. You should notice several problems with my opponent’s argument. First, he claims that every code was created by a mind. He provides no proof for this premise or why we should believe it. He does not explain why evolution could not create a code. Instead, he makes a categorical assumption about the nature of reality without providing evidence. I could just as easily say that every code was created by evolution, because evolution created DNA, evolution created humans, and humans make codes. Neither my statement, nor my opponent’s statement, proves whether codes must have been designed by minds or not. My opponent’s premise does not stand, and therefore, the whole argument fails. Second, he claims no code has been created by random chance. But, evolution does not drive change by random chance; it drives change through non-random natural selection. My opponent is misrepresenting how evolution works. There is simply no reason to accept his claim that every code is created by a designer. As an ancillary issue, a code can code itself. Consider evolutionary algorithms, for example. <<< CONCLUSION >>> Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate. I would like to remind everyone that my opponent had the burden of disproving evolution, stating in his opening round that he would “disprove evolution in this debate” and show that evolution “is an ineffective method of explaining life on this earth.” My opponent now claims he was not trying to “disprove evolution,” but it is clear within his opening round that he adopted that burden. My opponent has offered several arguments relating to (1) irreducible complexity; (2) the probability of life emerging; (3) brains; (4) scientific unknowns; (5) complexity, in general; (6) the nature of protein interactions; (7) and DNA. I have thoroughly rebuffed each of these arguments, and in every case, I have demonstrated that evolution can and does explain the issues presented by my opponent. If you believe that my opponent has failed to disprove evolution, and you believe I have presented stronger arguments, you must for CON. SOURCES [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.biomedcentral.com...