Evolution Is Not Proven

Con argues that since fossilization is a rare occurrence, that “gives reason for the "underepresented" Precambrian life. ” This does not refute my argument. In making this statement, Con has to assume that the supposed “underpresented [sic]” Precambrian life actually existed! The problem is the lack of evidence of transitionals between creatures like the mollusk and bacteria. Con has thus far only provided excuses for why they aren't found, instead of proving that they actually existed. It's one thing to excuse the lack of fossil evidence for these creatures, but to successfully refute my case, he's going to have to use a different type of evidence to prove that millions of transitionals between bacteria and mollusks actually existed. Let's make another analogy! I'm a prosecutor, and I think this guy murdered this woman. The suspect looks like an evil person, that's for sure. It's also well-known that he had a huge grudge against that lady. The only problem is, there are no fingerprints, or any other physical evidence, at the crime scene that conclusively tie him to the crime. However, I'm determined to get this guy convicted, so I tell the jury, “Look, we shouldn't expect to find his fingerprints at the scene. It was like, a long time from the actual murder until the date we discovered her body, so the weather and stuff erased the evidence. ” Do you think the jury will be convinced? Absolutely not! It may well be the case that the suspect actually is guilty, but explaining away the lack of fingerprints and other hard evidence is not sufficient to make the case. Similarly, it may be true that the mollusks descended from bacteria, but excusing the lack of fossil evidence is not sufficient to prove it! In the previous round, I pointed out that Natural Selection and mutations cannot produce a shelled mollusk in a single generation from a non-shelled animal. This is what Con had to say: “There's a reason for that; a geochemical change in ocean compostion. [sic]There's evidence that around the time of "cambrian explosion" the chemistry of the ocean changed; as in there was A LOT more calcium. The genes were already there but the raw materials weren't. Also that single generation from bacteria comment is completely misleading; there WERE multicellular organisms before the cambrian. ”(emphasis mine) Basically, he argues that “there's evidence” that a geochemical change in ocean composition resulted in “A LOT” more calcium and mollusks had the genes for building a shell but until this geochemical change, they couldn't build a shell. So my opponent is trying to convince everybody reading this debate that mollusks went from having a shell, to not having a shell in a single generation. However, since he is careful to say that “there's evidence” for his claim, instead of saying that “it's proven” or “there's conclusive evidence”, his argument does not damage my case and I'm going to drop it. Con repeats an already-refuted argument, in an attempt to explain why no transitionals between mollusks, and sponges or worms or bacteria, have been found: “soft bodied creatures only fossilize in extremely unusual environmental conditions as in VERY RARE. ” I've already pointed out how not only does this fail to explain why the millions of shelled transitionals haven't been found (if they ever existed), it's not sufficient to prove Evolution (as I defined it in the first round). Excusing the lack of evidence for something does not prove it, like I demonstrated with my little analogy. Con uses the E. coli experiment to “prove” that mollusks descended from bacteria. Sorry, but single-celled creatures remaining single-celled, although they gained the ability to eat citrate, does not come close to proving that a mollusk descended from a bacterium. Also, he misrepresents the study: He says that bacteria went from dying on citrate, to surviving on it and eating it. This is incorrect, as all of the bacteria had citrate in their environment from the beginning of the experiment. Con also uses false equivocation through his use of the word “evolution. ” I made it very clear that Evolution is defined as the following: “the idea that all extant life descended from a common organism via mutations and Natural Selection. ” When Con said that “Well [the E. coli experiment has] been going on for 26 years and evolution has already been observed”, he was falsely equivocating his own definition of Evolution with the definition that I provided. You see, had I defined “Evolution” as “the idea that bacteria can gain the ability to eat citrate”, Con would have won this debate right there. But that's not what Evolution means in the context of this debate. Con again tries to explain the sudden appearance of 10 major phylum without plausible links to mollusks, sponges, and worms by mentioning Punctuated Equilibrium. As I said in the previous round, this is a dead-end argument. Punctuated Equilibrium does not explain the sudden emergence of new phyla. I don't think Con understands what the term even means. Now that I get to Con's final argument, I'm beginning to suspect he may be parodying his position and not genuinely trying to argue for his side. As “proof” that all life descended from a common ancestor, he mentions another experiment involving bacteria that remained bacteria throughout many generations, although they gained the ability to survive higher temperatures. He seems to be aware that this isn't convincing: “Since many people claim those are not valid evidence because of the difference between a single cell and a multicellular organism here's an example with mice:” However, even his mouse experiment didn't “prove” that mollusks descended from bacteria, so this is another dead-end argument. Back to you Con. Since this is my last turn, I'd like to remind the voters to keep in mind the definition of “Evolution” that was clarified in the first round. Thanks for reading!