Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

Con said he didn't drop my arguments about Feynman's guidelines. Actually, he did. I showed how Evolution didn't live up to Feynman's crierion, and instead of arguing that they did, he brought in his own source, completely ignoring doctor Feynman's lecture. I apologize for implying Con made the "nitrate" typo multiple times! I suck at math. And reading... :\ Rebuttal #1: Dismissal of the First Sentence Con argues the first sentence of his definition of Evolution. However, I stand by my decision. Con may think this is abusive semantics, but if that were the case, he should have reworded it in a previous round so as to get semantics out of the way. For the sake of argumentation I may discuss it later. Rebuttal #2: Presuppositions and Hypotheses Con says that Evolution is so well established that it doesn't need to make any guesses. Never minding Feynman's lecture, which Con has ignored, Con's own standards for a theory require that it make predictions: “[...] predict the characteristics [...]” “It makes falsifiable predictions[…] Its predictions may differ[…] its predictive capability [...]” If Evolution doesn't make any predictions, then how can it have any predictive capability, and how are we going to determine whether these non-existent predictions are falsifiable or not? Con says that “The phrase, "populations of organisms evolve," is an observation, not a prediction”. In that case, I must ask Con what the use of his Evolution is! If it's just an observation, with no predictive capability, what's the point? Isn't the whole point of a scientific theory to make useful predictions? The next argument Con makes concerns allopatric speciation, and I'm dismissing it for reasons I already explained in the previous round: speciation cannot be used as objective evidence because it relies on the subjective, and inconsistenly applies, species label. Con says Lenski's E. coli “gain[ed] the ability of metabolizing citrate” but this is false. E. coli already had the enzymatic capacity to metabolize citrate before it suffered a loss of function mutation.(1) Con tried to use this to show that this makes his Evolution valid according to Feynman's lecture, but obviously, Con is incorrect on this point. Further, Con tries to say that “[Doctor Feynman] after all did agree that Evolution was a valid theory”, but I don't see how this is possible, since Feynman died decades ago and would have had no chance to read Con's definition of Evolution. Rebuttal #3: Lenski's Experiment Con claims I've demonstrated an inability to understand his definition. Is this true? I said that the Lenski Experiment shows that individuals do, in fact, evolve, in contrast to Con's definition of Evolution which states that populations of organisms evolve, but not individuals. Con responded thusly: “Evolutionary change is brought about through populations evolving, not individuals. Of course that population is made up of individuals, but that is beside the point.” So do individuals evolve, or do they not? This statement tries to simultaneously claim that populations evolve, not individuals, but also that the evolving populations are made up of individuals! Obviously, if individuals don't evolve, the population of them can't either, so Con's statement is internally inconsistent. Furthermore, if a population of E. coli evolved, as Con claims, than is it not also true that at least one individual E. coli evolved as well? Obviously, the answer is yes, which falsifies the claim of Evolution that individuals don't evolve. Remember (if you watched the video) what Doctor Feynman said about a guess if it doesn't agree with experiments? It's wrong! Also, Con's own standards for a scientific theory require that Evolution “is consistent with [...] experimental results.” So by Con's own standards, Evolution is not a valid scientific theory! I really do not appreciate the following accusation from my opponent: “Pro is simply trying to twist words and create a straw man argument in order to win this debate.” I request that he refrain from making such personal attacks in his next turn. Rebuttal #4: On the Subject of Species Is that the name of a famous book? No? Oh well, moving on. :P Con says I try to dismantle the species distinction by “pretending that scientists are not already aware of this issue”. Well first of all, I don't appreciate the implied accusation of dishonesty. Secondly, whether or not scientists are aware of the issue is completely irrelevant. My point is that assigning of the species label is subjective, and for this reason cannot be used as evidence for Con's Evolution. Con quotes Darwin, and actually reinforces my point: “entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties” I enjoyed your Liger photo! Here is a photo of a Rubidus, a cross between the aforementioned Viceroy and Red-Spotted Purple butterflies: I'm going to dismiss the rest of your arguments on this point, because they rely on the species label which we (Charles Darwin, Con, and I) have already agreed is entirely vague and arbitrary. Sigh, Con attacks me again: “this is simply another instance of my opponent attempting to play semantic games” Again, not appreciated. Rebuttal #5: Heritable Variations I'm going to pretend, for a moment here, that Con's first sentence of his definition was actually “Changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another.” Let me begin by pointing out that this part of Evolution does not make any predictions, either. If I twist the words around a bit, I might be able to form some sort of guess, like “heritable traits of a population of organisms change as successive generations replace one another.” How would this be falsified? Find an example of a heritable trait in a population not changing through successive generations? Ok, what about blue eyes? My grandma had blue eyes, so that heritable trait didn't change. There we go, Evolution is again proven invalid, for it's no longer “well-supported by many independent strands of evidence” as his standards require, but actually falsified by the evidence! Con says we can use DNA testing to determine whether or not a kid is the child of 2 other people. I agree. However, Con extrapolates wildly from this premise, claiming that DNA testing can determine if a chimpanzee is related to the entire human population! This is very illogical. First of all, DNA testing would be useless in the parenthood case if we did not already know for a fact that humans can give birth to kids. But, we've observed this countless times before, so it's a given. In the case of DNA testing a chimpanzee and a person, we do not know for a fact that humans can give birth to chimpanzees, or vice-versa, or that there is (or ever was) some creature that could give birth to both humans and chimpanzees, so DNA testing cannot determine a relationship between humans and chimpanzees! If Con has ever observed a human birthing a chimp, or vice-versa, or any creature birthing both a chimp and a human, I retract my statement. Until this is observed, a relationship between humans and chimps cannot be assumed. DNA similarities between humans and chimps does cannot determine a relationship if it is not first shown that humans and chimps can even be related in the first place! Con says the fossil record has evidence of an emergence of bi-pedal primates. This does not prove a relationship between humans and chimps. Con seems to be forgetting that the only reason we trust DNA parenthood testing in the first place is because we've already seen that humans are related to each other, because they give birth to each other! Conclusion of Rebuttals Con says “It is disappointing to see where this debate has gotten” and I have to agree. I thought we would be discussing the validity of his definition of Evolution instead of accusing me of semantic games and dishonesty. Good luck to Con in his final turn. (1) http://www.lehigh.edu...