Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

My opponent has either misunderstood my position, or is just getting off topic. I will refute his arguments and expose his use of logical fallacies. Well first of all, Con is implying that if I reject macroevolution, that I must present an alternative theory, such as Biblical creation. However, this debate is not about comparing Neo Darwinism to alternative theories. In the initial round I mentioned the purpose of this debate is to refute macroevolution. Stating at what point we have evolved from, would be entering into alternative theories. You do not need to have an alternative theory in order to prove another theory wrong. All it takes is observation of the facts. Con is failing to understand my argument, and is unjustly bypassing it, without supporting his claims. He has claimed that microevolution and macroevolution are the same process. I have already provided a very reliable source that clarifies that these two are run by different mechanisms. But I think it would be better for me to explain it with an analogy: Imagine the following list is a full genome: (each variable represents a gene) 1) Brown hair 2) Green eyes 3) Brown skin tone 4) Male 5) Tall Obviously, I’m just using this for its extreme simplicity which will help me explain my point. With Microevolution: I can change the variables in this list infinite times. But one thing will always remain the same: the amount of genes it has. It will always be 5. They can change of course, we can arrive at speciation this way, however, it stays at the same number of variables. It does not increase in information, it only VARIES. For a single celled organism to evolve into a human, it would not just take variation of genes, it would take many increases in the quantity of genetic information. With Macroevolution: The list would not just vary, it would get more genes. It would need to increase the number of variables. So it would get more than 5 variables. However, there are no viable means by which an organism can introduce brand new genes, and has never been observed. This is my explanation of why they are different mechanisms. Microevolution consists of variation. 1 thing. Macroevolution consists of variation and addition. 2 things. Therefore macroevolution cannot be “microevolution over long periods of time” because you can change the variables in a genome as many times as you want. You can do it for a billion years, but if you have no addition of genes, you do not make the organism more complex, just different. It’s that simple and that is why 150 of the world’s leading scientists got together to resolve this issue, and all concluded that these 2 processes are indeed based on different mechanisms and cannot be achieved by the same mechanisms. If my opponent is to argue that successful increases in genetic information do happen, he must provide proof for it. Refuting Con´s Fossil Record Claim: Interestingly, Con has claimed that the fossil record shows microevolution, which it does. But that it also shows common ancestry between organisms beyond that level. There is great proof against this. We don’t see extreme common ancestry in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion Era, presented practically all of the complex lifeforms in a geological instant, and before that era, there were only single celled organisms. This is definitely not transitional. If macroevolution were true, we would expect to see single celled organisms slowly increase in complexity up to the insanely complex creatures of today. However, we don’t see this. We do see microevolution throughout the fossil record, however, Darwin’s “Tree of Life” was apparently not a tree after all, more like non-unified branches. As evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould confessed: "We have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their appearance at that time." The reality of the fossil record could not be any farther from slow and gradual increases in complexity, as macroevolution would require. Refuting “Leftovers”: My opponent has correctly claimed that if macroevolution were true, we would expect to see vestigial parts (leftovers) in modern day creatures, such as humans. Nevertheless, we don’t see any. This is major evidence against macroevolution. And if my opponent can successfully identify any part of a creature that has no function, then he should get the vote. Con mentioned the “plica semilunaris”, A part of the eye which he claims is a vestigial part. It’s not, it actually has a critical function for the health of the eye. It secretes the sticky substance that hardens into the crust we sometimes find around our eyes when we wake up. This substance surrounds any particles that find their way into the eye, making them less likely to scratch the eye, and making it easier for the tears and eyelids to remove the particles from the eye. If we didn’t have this organ, our eyes would be much more prone to painful injuries that would affect our sight, and also make us more susceptible to related infections. Refuting his common ancestry claim: Con has made a rather striking argument that apparently serves as proof for common ancestry between all organisms. Unfortunately for Con, this is not so. I was rather surprised he used this argument. It is, as I had initially predicted, an argument based on logical fallacy. And in this case, to a severe degree. Cons argument, put into simple terms, is basically saying the following: The probability of all organisms macro-evolving from uncommon decent is way less likely than that of them macro-evolving through common descent, therefore common descent has to be the way it happened. This sounds logical, but only for the context it SHOULD BE IN. The fallacy here, is that the argument is giving a set limited presupposed alternatives. It is either A) macroevolution by common descent, or B) macroevolution by uncommon descent. Of these two, the 2nd is a million times less probable than the 1st, I agree. But he is comparing macroevolution to macroevolution. He is saying if macroevolution happened, then common descent probably did too, and then trying to use common descent as proof for macroevolution. Pretty much that out of the types of theoretical macroevolution, common descent is the most probable. But that ignores the possibility that macroevolution is not true. So his statistical argument goes out the trash. He is doing the same with the SPECIFIC form of creationism he mentions and for his argument to be pertinent he would be presupposing I accepted said theory. So Con is presupposing the existence of macroevolution to try and argue for its existence. Also, he is claiming proof for common ancestry based on the similarities of different organism’s genomes. Similarities in different genomes statistically imply a common origin. But that does not necessarily mean by macroevolution. My opponent jumps straight at one type of common origin: macroevolution. But ignores the fact that common origin can argue against macroevolution as well. It is a matter of perspective. Similarities across life can imply many different mutually-exclusive theories. However, like I have stated several times, this debate is not about disproving alternate theories. My opponent is supposed to provide proof of macroevolution. Proof requires an exclusive conclusion. This is a huge mistake on his part. I have refuted the arguments he made, but he has not refuted my main argument at all (Michael Behe), unless Con can successfully refute it, it renders macroevolution on Earth statistically impossible. And he gives no reason or explanation to justify his claim that macro and micro evolution are based on the exact same process. Side note: My headline shouldn’t affect voting, it is of reference, I described the exact debate topic in the in round 1. Or else the headline would be called "macroevolution". Sources: (shrunk them to make space) tinyurl.com/nch2d9z tinyurl.com/2bggf8c tinyurl.com/48ev6hc