Evolution

Going right in to the debate once more: I. Genetics Con's argument is a repetition of what we have heard ad nauseum. I have already explained that genetic sequences millions of base pairs long don't form as single units; they are comprised of a large number of pieces that assemble together. Only under very unusual circumstances would one single mutation cause an observable benefit to an organism just by itself, evolution is a long and incremental process. See my previous explanation. II. Irreducible Complexity Con's response to this point amounts to a nonargument. I already said that over 90% of the proteins involved in the flagellum serve some other purpose. [1] He has practically conceded that, "[y]ou have demonstrated it is possible to develop the flagellum," and is just giving his opinion that he feels it is unlikely. Well, apparently it wasn't all that unlikely because all the evidence shows that it happened. III. Abiogenesis Once again, I already went over this topic in great detail. I wrote several paragraphs about it in Round 1. Virtually all of Con's objections were plainly and clearly answered. I have accounted for the formation of macromolecules and basic life forms. Once again this is virtually a nonresponse. However, I will address the question of why this has not been replicated in laboratory conditions. I will remind everyone of the fact that in nature this took place over the entire planet and took millions of years, and scientists do not have that much time or space in their labs. However, there are numerous projects attempting this very task that are currently underway. [2] IV. The Cambrian Explosion In the face of actual evidence, Con is once again reduced to bare assertion. "Cells don't just gather in clusters and turn into sea creatures." Says who? I provided actual scientific sources and logically explained them to argue that this is exactly what happened. Mere incredulity is no argument. The Cambrian Explosion did take an extremely long time; it was just short in the scale of geological time. [3] The most logical assumption is that life reached a point where more diversification became possible. Because evolution doesn't necessarily trend toward complexity, there is no reason to assume that life should get more complex. This is another point I was quite clear about explaining in the previous round. V. Fossil Record Con reverts to stating his opinion again. The ancestors of the whale don't look similar enough to him, so they can't be related. The similarities in body structure are clearly documented, and anyone can see how much these species look alike just be using Google. I could break the transitions down even further but I see no point because Con would just continue to rationalize them away. It is apparent to anyone who cares to look that the species are quite physically similar and they existed sequentially in time. To conclude that this is a coincidence and that they did not evolve is willful ignorance. VI. Age of the Earth In the previous round I asked Con why he favored one method of dating over the other twenty-one on the Creationist website he referenced. His response was that: "I also believe the other twenty-one are more or less correct" We ought to find that a little suspect because some of the methods put the age of the Earth at a few thousand years and others put it at hundreds of millions of years old. Con's suggested methods of dating are not consistent within five orders of magnitude and he insists that they are equally valid. It is only logical that because his methods of dating differ by so much that almost all of them are wrong. The radiometric methods used by real scientists differ by less than 1%, or negative two orders of magnitude. The method of dating used by scientists if seven orders of magnitude (or one million times) more precise than the Creationist methods. I'm not even going to bother defending radiometric dating because it makes a bare minimum of assumptions and Con's alternatives are absolutely terrible. Asserting that the Earth is too young is an absolutely frivolous argument against evolution. Absolutely no one who is a serious scholar of geology is going to agree with that. I can't imagine how much of the beauty of nature is lost on people who hike up a mountain, look down at the ancient rocks, and proclaim, "This mountain looks to be about five thousand years old!" VII. Creationism Has Equal Explanatory Power My opponent basically drops this argument. We can both agree that it is irrelevant to a debate about evolution. Conclusion: The objections to evolution are based on nothing. Creationists start with their gut rejection of evolution, which is based on a history of the world invented by desert nomads who had no conception of redox reactions, heredity, or the germ theory of disease, and proceed to attempt to rationalize it using pseudoscience. They have started with a conclusion and done everything possible to affirm it, but even in spite of this their evidence is weak and poorly presented because the claim they try to support is simply so absurd. Are we seriously expected to believe that the reason their work never finds its way into major journals is just the result of a conspiracy? Just look at the websites I linked to and the websites Con linked to. The quality of work of the evolutionists is markedly better: it is more thoroughly explained, more effectively presented, exhaustively sited, and backed by mountains of evidence. The problem is that people don't know bad science when they see it, but explaining how to tell the difference is beyond the scope of this debate and probably something you'd be better off asking a university professor (that is, if you think they've learned anything in the course of getting their PhD and doing scientific research). I have rigorously explained evolution and addressed all of con's objections with well documented and widely accepted scientific evidence. The alternative methods that he has proposed are erroneous and there is no reason to assume his sources are reliable. The Creationists are not on par with the evolutionists and they never will be because Creationism is a fake science invented to justify a worldview that didn't make sense in ancient times when it was made up by goat herds. Humanity has progressed since the time of ancient Israel and it is unfortunate that some people have chosen to stay behind. Sources: [1] Campbell's Biology [2] http://www.ecltech.org... [3] Campbell's Biology