Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms

C1- Pro continues to argue that hierarchies are shown to be "unique". That is false. He hasn't ruled out other causes scientifically. He has simply argued that cytochrome c sequencing would be random if common descent were false, with the probability at 1 in 10^38. Has Pro compared non-related individuals to verify that the sequencing would be random? ? No, he has presented no evidence that any comparison was done, so how does he know that it would show random sequencing, if the subjects were unrelated? ? In truth he doesn't, he simply asserts it as fact. For all he knows the study could have been run on unrelated individuals, but due to his presupposition, he can't recognize that. That assertion, as well as any probability estimation is pure conjecture, and isn't even close to being a scientific finding. It certainly doesn't show the findings to be "unique" to the conclusion of UCD. Pro says, "If common descent isn't true, organisms that are morphologically similar would be molecularly different because of the functional redundancy of cytochrome c. " Again I ask, how could Pro possibly know that to be the case? ? That statement doesn't even make good sense, much less being scientifically supported. No evidence is presented to support that statement. It is simply assumption, argued as a scientific fact. C2- Pro asks the reader to disregard Tomkins' study, in favor of the fact that his focuses on one ubiquitous protein. Tomkins' study however, is a "Comprehensive Analysis" of chromosomes. Pro is comparing apples and oranges. The reason I posted it was to show that although Pro is tunneling on cytochrome c, there are alot of discontinuities that he is ignoring. Pro is misunderstanding my reason for bringing up Lynn Margulis. I wasn't trying to show that she disagrees with evolution. The point was to show that even evolutionists disagree amongst themselves as to whether mutations and natural selection are adequate as the driving force behind evolution. C3- I did not drop any arguments regarding the fossil record, as Pro states. I have shown how that argument isn't supported by evidence, it is simply asserted as fact that similar fossils indicate common ancestry. That is an assumption, not science. Pro continues to assert that the same process that causes different species of the same animal, also causes that animal to eventually evolve into a different kind of animal. He has presented no evidence to support his claim, and in fact tried to shift the burden for disproof, to me. That is an unfounded assertion, and has never been observed. Pro states that it can't be observed because it takes long periods of time. That is a tacit admission that UCD proposes something that is not seen, thus he must make assumptions, and assert as fact things that he can't actually support scientifically, as this debate has shown. From there he goes back to an argument against what he says I believe, regarding "kinds". Once again, attacking my personal religious beliefs is just a red herring, and does not help him at all in trying to uphold the resolution. Frankly it's irrelevant. In summary, all the evidence presented by Pro suffers from the same problems. It is rife with unscientifically supported assertion as fact, and assumptions. I have shown how nested hierarchies, phylogenetic trees, fossil arguments, and vestigial organs, all stem from the same assumption. That is that similarity equals relatedness, thus common descent. I have shown that Pro can't possibly have done any comparative studies to show what should be found in unrelated individuals. In fact, if the scientists were indeed comparing unrelated individuals, they couldn't even possibly recognize that fact due to the assumption that they are comparing related organisms. As I've shown over the course of this debate, all of Pro's arguments including his conclusion of UCD, fulfill all of the requirements in the definition of pseudo-science that was agreed upon. His arguments are not subject to any kind of non-biased scientific method that doesn't contain assumptions of facts that are not supported by evidence. Without being supported by scientific evidence, there is no way to reliably test the theory since everything is assumed to be related. It cannot compare unrelated organisms to show how the results should look, we are left to just assume that Pro is correct when he says that "unrelated organisms that are morphologically similar should be molecularly different". We can't falsify the theory because we can't produce an organism that Pro would believe is unrelated, and show why it's unrelated. Instead we're left with only one way to falsify the theory. My burden, in this debate, does not include refuting, point-by-point, the accuracy of each of Pro's assertions. It was to show how Pro's case, and the conclusion of UCD is pseudo-science. I have fulfilled that burden. Pro, on the other hand, has not shown any evidence to support his assertion that similarity equals shared ancestry. That assumption is at the root of all his arguments and evidence. Without factual support for that assumption, his entire case falls apart. He has no actual scientific evidence for UCD. He has not fulfilled his burden in this debate, which was to show that UCD is a "scientific" explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms.