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

Species AssertionI would address this however I think it will begin to distract from the main points of the debate. It is important to note however that there are several different definitions for species. Our disagreement is a technicality and as long as Con shows a gain of biological information and not a no gain or loss, we will be fine.Defense of Proof #1There was indeed a loss of biological information which was meant to be the main focus. However, I would like to point out lactose tolerance came about more then once. [1]Transcriptional functions may have been lost, which actually supports Pro's conclusion more then Con's, however there have been other methods of obtaining lactose tolerance. This very fact is supportive of the postulate. We know that the information for lactose digestion was present beforehand due to infants digesting milk. I assert the function is shut off in lactose intolerance individuals. This is indirectly supported by the fact of multiple ways to reach lactose tolerance. If indeed something must be gained, in this case specifically information for lactose digestion in adulthood, then there would only be one way to get it. That would be to gain that information. However, the evidence is strongly in favor that there are different micro level functions that you can loose, including transcriptional loss as Con stated, to reach lactose tolerance.Con's ThesisI want to state that my opponent's thesis does not necessarily need to be proven. What does need to dsproven is the postulate. However, proving his thesis would indeed disprove the postulate.Rebuttal of Con's Opening ArgumentFrom the information I am reading on this gene I pick up the general gesture that the formation of the gene wasn't observed. My argument will be based on the assumption that it wasn't. If somehow you can cite something that shows that this was observed then it will most likely void this rebuttal. Con's argument goes as follows.1. There is a jingwei gene.2. It is assumed to have been derived from the compounding process.3. Compounding process results in new functions as in the jingwei gene therefore postulate is false.The problem starts in number two. Con is essentially assuming the compounding process exists which disproves the postulate. This assumption shouldn't be made as it is bad logic. This means the postulate still stands.Postulate Proof #2This proof is a thought experiment with numerous examples/citations in the end as observed evidence for his proof.Species A has Population A in Location A. Location A is separated into two locations, each isolated from the other. This means Population A is separated into two populations, one in each location. Each location is different in some way. This means that certain existing traits are preferred differently on each location. Each population looses genetic diversity and diverges in two species.It is important to note that genetic diversity decreases in these cases. Sometimes genes will be lost due to environmental pressures. Since genes will be selected against and lost this means a corresponding loss in function.Examples:1. Darwin's Finches if we assume a common finch ancestor which I think we both do.2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources[1] http://news.sciencemag.org...[2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...