The Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain All Organisms.

Thank You, Con, for that round. And for this debate. Closing Statements Brief Closing Rebuttals:1. First off- I made the point regarding the unconfirmed nature of these "previous functions", coupled with the increasing number of these irreducibly complex systems, to show that not only are these ideas speculative, but the increasing number of these required speculations is constantly making Evolution a more forlorn and unlikely theory.2. An interesting point my opponent does make concerning the "loose lock" argument. I cannot say that I disagree with natural selection's choice of a better adapted cell. If the stronger bond between those proteins is preferable, than according to natural selection, that bond will become the dominant gene in the species. What this idea fails to explain is the point I made in the first place- How the bond was initiated in the first place. Once the bond has formed, than natural selection may tighten it. But the bond first has to form, even if it is a loose one. My opponent will need to provide an explanation for this.3. The point I made from this regard is the fact that the assembly of a complex, interlocking system is unlikely due to the meticulous requirements of such formations. It is the machinery involved in such a system such as a flagella that make random assembly illogical. Not simply the complexity and number of parts. Complexity is not the same as irreducible complexity. Final Pro Argument: DNADNA is a code. There is no code that has been created by random chance. Every Code ever to exist was created by a mind. Its the practical definition of code. There has to be a mind to give it meaning! 56712334erd3What do those stand for? Unless I told you the first one codes for an elephant, and the second codes for an apple, you would have no idea. The first one may just as well stand for a Volkswagen passat and the second a Mercedes-Benz SLK. Until I, a mind, give a code meaning, it is meaningless. A code cannot code itself. How then can: ATGCTGCAT code for long brown hair by chance? It may just as easily code for an elephant trunk, or excessive facial hair. It cannot give itself meaning! I ask my opponent: Where does the meaning come from? How does DNA explain itself? Conclusion:I would like to start off by addressing a peculiar situation in which my opponent has tried to change my premise to his favor. What was the Premise? The Title. The Theory of Evolution cannot explain all organisms. I also go on in the explanation to show that I mean organism's structures as well, although this is self-explanatory. My Premise was NOT: "The Theory of Evolution is False, and Intelligent Design is correct. " On several occasions my opponent attempts to place a burden of proof on my shoulders to try and force me to prove Intelligent Design. He has made arguments out of the fact that my premises do not prove Intelligent design. I am not trying to prove or disprove either theory, I am merely supporting the resolved that evolution cannot explain all organisms. My Premise was NOT: "The Theory of Evolution Cannot explain all organisms, and never will. " Although I do believe this, it was not on my "prove list" for this resolution. My opponent has, on several occasions, attempted to back evolution by basically saying "we will find out eventually. " If you cannot explain it, than you have given the debate in my favor, hence the premise. My opponent has also called me out for using "God in the Gaps". Again, although I do believe God created the earth, that is not on my "prove list. " On my "prove list" was merely to point out that there were in fact gaps, which my opponent has essentially admitted there are. I believe I have won this debate based on the original Premise. Although I have not proven Intelligent design, I was not required to. I have shown the evolution of the flagellum to be logically impossible, even though my opponent claims it is technically possible. I do not believe my opponent will be able to refute my "DNA argument" which he must in order to win the debate. That is the argument I feel most strongly about, and if I win this point, I effectively win the debate. My opponent has sidestepped abiogenesis: Anytime a creationist brings up the creation of life, the evolutionist claims that that is not part of evolution. For once, I wish the evolutionists would quit dividing up their theories as if one has no relation to the other. Both random abiogenesis and evolution place their faith in random chance and the absence of any sort of mind. If random chance cannot explain abiogenesis, than a mind is the only other option. If a mind created life, than natural logic would assume that It created all life. These theories are not the same, but are tied together in such a way that I believe they should be represented in the same debate.