The "deteriorating process" can explain all inferred instances of the "compounding process."

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I was debating on how to do it and then after I posted I decided against it and never changed it. Con's Assumptions I agree that a given species is unique with definable traits that can be used to differentiate an organism from other organisms with some similar observable and measurable characteristics. Since this is the result of his assumption the assumption is not important, however it may be important to note that I disagree with the actual assumption. Man has invented the species term from distinguishable characteristics. There is nothing in biology that makes this species classification specifically. Con's Definitions I accept the Con's definitions. It is important to note that biological and genetic information by our definitions are basically the same except for genetic information is inherited and derived from nucleotide sequences. Pro's Argument Defense of Using Function as a Basis for Information I feel it necessary to defend this because I feel voters/readers may disagree. Also elaboration may be necessary if not only for reiteration. Information causes functions which, with other factors, determine usefulness. In some environments a function may be beneficial and in others harmful. Sine information does not change on location we should correlate it to something that also does not change on location. Functions do not change from location to location, environment to environment. Whether the function is beneficial, neutral or harmful does. Invalid Pro Argument By definition, a scientific claim must be able to be proven false. It may seem that the Pro’s case cannot be lost due to the following possibility. Con claims gain of new function. Pro claim loss of suppression of said function. This proves illogical in that any function can be refuted. This makes the Pro’s case, if using this argument, not scientific. If however the function can be shown to exist in the past then it would become a logical refutation as it can become more scientifically supported that it was indeed suppressed. Validating the Postulate To show the burden of proof is on the Con, I must show that my postulate is probable. That is to say, I must show how it is true in a few cases. By doing this it then becomes the Con's job to disprove it in any one case. Only one case is needed to disprove the postulate. If the case presented can be explained by the degenerative process, the case is against the postulate is void. Note that I hope postulate is the correct terminology. The Postulate: All instances of speciation are capable of being explained by the degenerative process which means the compounding process is not required. Proof #1 Lactose intolerance is normally classified as a deficiency in that one cannot digest lactose. However, it seems the norm may be lactose intolerance and the abnormal to be lactose persistence. A majority of adults are actually lactose intolerant. All infants have the enzyme necessary to digest lactose. However, people with lactose intolerance lose the function due to either a genetic or environmental factor depending on the case. People with lactose persistence can digest lactose into their adult life. [1] This can be explained by the removal of the suppression of the enzyme. Since the original function could be to suppress the enzyme after infancy, the removal of this function would be a biological information loss. This does not contradict Pro’s Invalid Argument. This is because it is shown that it this function to digest lactose was present in the past. This gives scientific evidence that there is a possibility that there was indeed the loss of a function. Speciation Invalid Con Argument By definition, it is possible to speciate with no change in function. Because the definition of species includes breeding within a certain population, a creation of a natural boundary would split a population disabling the opportunity to mate with organisms in the other population. Since no change in information occurs, it is invalid for the Con to use this type of speciation in an argument as follows. Con show’s population split. No loss of information and speciation, therefore compounding process. Valid Con Argument I will allow Con to show any gain of function whether it results in speciation or not. However, it is possible that the Con may use an argument that shows a new expressed function because of the result of environmental stimuli. It must be shown, if no speciation occurs, that the event was from a change in genetic information. Focus of the Debate I only give one proof at the moment because the majority of my time will be used disproving the Con’s arguments for a compounding process. Not necessarily disproving but showing the alternative and letting Occam’s Razor do the rest. Implication of Postulate beyond the Debate It should be noted that if said postulate is true, then the immediate implication is that the compounding process must be inferred. For example, one might look at the order of fossils and see the need for the compounding process. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...