The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Muted
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Creationism (con) vs Evolution (pro)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,550 times Debate No: 26600
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Magic8000

Pro

Hey, I see you're in quite a bit of debates so if you want to wait on this one I'm fine with that.

BOP is shared.

cre"a"tion"ism   [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

ev"o"lu"tion [ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]

In Biology. The change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

(1)Acceptance
(2)Opening arguments
(3)Rebuttals
(4)Rebuttals to the rebuttals and closing.
Muted

Con

On the assumption that evolution will lead to new speciation in violation of the creationist baramin, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

I'm unsure what you mean. Do you mean that I'm suggesting that specation contradicts baraminology and you're saying that's a false assumption or are you saying that specation does contradict baraminology?

The Fossil Record

We can find out how creatures evolved by the order of the fossils. We shouldn't find a rabbit fossil in with the Cambrian era,not a humans fossil with a trilobite.

This is exactly what we see. The lowest strata has the oldest rock and with the earliest fossils. Furthermore the highest strata has the youngest rock and more recent fossils.

How was the fossil record sorted in a way to fulfill a prediction of evolution if they were laid down in the disturbance of a global flood?

Since fossil layers were really constructed over millions of years, there was sufficient time to accumulate a consistent layer of corpses from many many generations of animals over wide areas. You could dig up a layer of trilobite fossils in Boise, for example, and it would have the same density of trilobite fossils as the same layer in Kansas City. So if you read the Noah story back into this observation, the antediluvian world must have been wall-to-wall trilobites, not to mention all the other animals in the other layers. In fact, there must have been far more animals than the biosphere could reasonably be expected to support, all because YECs compress a billion years of fossil building into a few weeks. [1]

Chromosome Fusion

Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:

  • The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common Chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan
  • The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
  • The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.
Chromosome 2 thus presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2 [3]


ERVs

Short for Endogenous retroviruses. An ERV are sequences in the genome that come from ancient viral infections. Their proviruses get passed on to the next generation and remain inside the genome[2]

Finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species would indicates common ancestry.

In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA . There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.

http://debate.org...

The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene.[4]

[1]http://rationalwiki.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]Ibid
[4]Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012
Muted

Con

I do not understand Pro"s specation. Could he define his terms? Speciation within a created kind does not refute creationism. I will note here, this is not a false dichotomy, that only two logical positions are available. Evolution, or Special Creation. Arguing against one means arguing for the other.

The Fossil Record
Pro states, "So if you read the Noah story back into this observation, the antediluvian world must have been wall-to-wall trilobites, not to mention all the other animals in the other layers..." He must be dreaming. I make no sense of his words.

I will now address the problems of the Cambrian. Virtually all phyla are found in the Cambrian, including vertebrae. What startles one is the fact that fossils found in the Cambrian has no evolutionary ancestors. Furthermore, no new body plans were discovered since. This is known as the Cambrian explosion. It is the biggest problem of evolutionists. From simple celled organisms, then highly complex creatures, which decreased in complexity, and then increased slowly in complexity over "geologic time."

The fact that there are fossils of soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish is a contradiction to slow fossilization advocated and required by evolutionists. It is even a falsification of one of Darwin"s predictions. There is even fossilized ink. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...; http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Chromosome fusion. Infor taken from http://creation.com...; http://creation.com... (I realize they may be too technical for some to understand, and note that I do not quote things I do not understand.)
"1. The reputed fusion site is located in a peri-centric region with suppressed recombination and should exhibit a reasonable degree of tandem telomere motif conservation. Instead, the region is highly degenerate"a notable feature reported by a previous investigation.
2. In a 30 kb region surrounding the fusion site, there exists a paucity of intact telomere motifs (forward and reverse) and very few of them are in tandem or in frame.
3. Telomere motifs, both forward and reverse (TTAGGG and CCTAAA), populate both sides of the purported fusion site. Forward motifs should only be found on the left side of the fusion site and reverse motifs on the right side
4. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence is not unique to the purported fusion site, but found throughout the genome with 80% or greater identity internally on nearly every chromosome; indicating that it is some type of ubiquitous higher-order repeat.
5. No evidence of synteny with chimp for the purported fusion site was found. The 798-base core fusion-site sequence does not align to its predicted orthologous telomeric regions in the chimp genome on chromsomes 2A and 2B.
6. Queries against the chimp genome with the human alphoid sequences found at the purported cryptic centromere site on human 2qfus produced no homologous hits using two different algorithms (BLAT and BLASTN).
7. Alphoid sequences at the putative cryptic centromere site are diverse, form three separate sub-groups in alignment analyses, and do not cluster with known functional human centromeric alphoid elements."
On to the problems with fusion. "Within the 10 to 30 kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site, a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats exist that appear mostly as independent monomers, not tandem repeats. Based on the predicted model, thousands of intact motifs in tandem should exist. For the TTAGGG repeat to the left of the fusion site, less than 35 motifs exist, a normal human telomere would typically have 1667 to 2500."
Too many unsubstantiated assumptions of mutations has to be made in order for fusion to work.

In fact, there are so many problems with the fusion hypothesis that I might as well advocate naturally purple elephants pushing the planets in orbital eclipses.

Pro"s claims that ERVs come from ancient viral infections are bogus. ERVs have function. For example, they control mice embryological development, promoter-sequences are derived from them. They initiate transcription. In fact, ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the genome. [1] Pro"s claims therefore falls through the floor.

All the evidence that Pro has cited are really evidence for Creation. Both of us are arguing from the same set of data. The only things that differentiate us are our starting assumptions. These affect our conclusions.

Pro"s basic assumptions is:
That no supernatural acts can occur.
No Creator had any influence on the earth.
Time can be measured by "geological strata."
The rate of change (Not that it does not change) does not fluctuate unless evidence to the contrary is presented.
There are more, but I do not wish to list them here.

Conclusion: Pro makes unsupportable assumptions that he cannot defend. Pro"s arguments have no weight. The fossil record actually supports Creation. The lack of a connection between chromosome 2 is evidence for a separate baramin. ERVs have a function not connected with viral infections. Pro"s arguments fail. Therefore. Vote Con.

1. http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro

I was just asking you to clear up what you said in R1

The Fossil Record

Con didn't address the main argument for evolution here. That the fossils are properly sorted

"He must be dreaming. I make no sense of his words."
You could of told me what exactly you didn't understand.
The point of this is the fossils in the layers have the same density of those in the same layer somewhere else in the world,so the antedilvian world(The period referred to in the Bible between the Creation of the Earth and the flood[1]) would of been wall-to-wall fossils. So much that our biosphere couldn't of supported all.

The Cambrian Explosion

The creatures in the Cambrain era did have evolutionary ancestors in the Precambrian era
Many phyla, including the Cnidarians, Mollusca, Annelida, and Arthropoda appeared in the Precambrian. Along with many complex life forms.
In any case, not all of the phyla present in the Cambrian were anything like their modern representatives. Many, if not all Cambrian organisms appear different, and more primitive than their later relatives. For example, the Cambrian eocrinoid echinoderm Gogia spiralis was attached to the substrate by a short, thick, plate-covered stem and holdfast, while later eocrinoids developed the long, slender stems made up of columnal disks typical of their descendants, the crinoids and blastoids. Equally, neither bryozoans, nor any of the major vertebrate groups most people are familiar with (fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, or birds) appear in the Cambrian. [2]
The evolution of complex organisms requires all the basic components of complex life (i.e. the ability to produce bone-like structures, hormonal regulation etc). The precambrian explosion simply indicates the point in time when all the necessary substrates of complex animals arrived allowing for the creation of all the different phyla.[3]
In 1997 Caltech scientists reported a mechanism for much more rapid plate movement relative to earth's poles resulting in both rapid and unstable climate changes. This mechanism would stress ecological subsystems severely thus promoting more rapid evolutionary change. [4]

Lack of hard parts would make it very difficult for fossilization to occur. As you have linked to the story on the fossilized ink pack, yet this is a red herring. Since one fossilization event doesn't speak for evolution or all fossils for that matter. It is very rare for soft bodied organisms to fossilize[5]. If a soft-bodied creature is covered by sediment or muck soon after it dies, the impression of the body will be preserved as the material hardens over time. This doesn't prove that we should have more pre-cambrian fossils,since soft bodied fossils are still very rare.

This isn't a prediction of evolution itself. If it was and if evolution is false then we would see an abundance of soft bodied fossils. It is well known fossils can from quickly. Scientists don't claim that fossils have take a long time to form. Thus this is just a red herring

The Cambrian explosion isn't evidence for creationism,but against.[6]

If YEC were true, the explosion would involve not just some crustaceans, trilobites, and various unusual marine forms, but a total cross-section of all of the millions of clades that have ever existed, including fish, dinosaurs, and giraffes. (After all, under the YEC model, God did not create any new taxa any time after the first week). It would be an "Everything explosion".

Chromosome fusion
Why would human chromosome 2 have virtually the same genetic layout as is found in the two chimp chromosomes?

Furthermore, the evolutionary process would tend to remove over time the non-functional teleomere and centromere coding, thus causing the changes that were found. The fact is that there are still remnants of both in the EXACT places they should be if there was a fusion of the two chromosomes.

Biologist PZ Myers critiqued Bergman and Tomkins' essay basically saying it attacks straw men and goes off on red herrings.[7]

Here is a portion

"The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence.

What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed.

Bergman and Tomkins ignore every single bit of that. Instead, what they do is focus on just the region of the fusion, and complain that it is a tangled mess and hard to interpret — that it is a degenerate telomeric region, rather than a complete and intact telomere, which is what they demand be present. This is an unrealistic expectation, given that every paper on the structure of the fusion region makes the point that it is degenerate.

An analogy: Two trucks crash into each other. You’d be able to look at the crash and still tell by everything in and behind the engine compartment that Car #1 was a Mustang and Car #2 was an X6.

Bergman and Tomkins are the bewildered and incompetent investigators who ignore every other factor in the crash, look at a few particularly mangled bits of the wreckage, and declare that they can’t identify it, therefore…the two vehicles were assembled at the factory in this particular configuration, and no crash occurred. But they use lots of sciencey language to explain this at tendentious length, which is sufficient to convince non-scientists that the interpretation of an obvious historical event has been refuted. And that’s all they need to do to accomplish their goals: fling about unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to win over the ignorant."

ERVs
This is from Abbie Smith's blog(which is now on science blogs[8]).

"As a defense against the argument that 'junk DNA', including nonfunctional ERVs, is evidence against their choice* of 'Designer', Creationists insist that ERVs are functional.

There is a very big difference between a functional ERV, and a functional component of an ERV. Creationists do not understand this (specific example here)

Yes, we have found a retroviral env that has been co-opted by mammals. Yes, somewhere around 100 human proteins might have evolved from co-opted gag proteins. Yes, we can find retroviral transcripts floating about cells, sometimes. But these are not examples of ERV functionality. They examples of evolution in action-- the host organism salvaging ERV parts for its own use.

Complete ERVs are recombined, mutated, and methylated into junk. When they regain some semblance of functionality, they cause disease! Which is no surprise, as exogenous retroviruses like HIV and HTLV cause AIDS, leukaemia, lymphomas, and various other autoimmune diseases.

ERVs specific to humans, called HERVs, have been tied to multiple cancers, including germ-cell tumors, breast cancer, seminomas, melanoma, ovarian cancer... And autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and lupus (please see this source for more information).

These are just the human-specific ERVs. We have lots more.

DISCLAIMER-- Currently, ERV->disease research is very new, as are the methods we use for studying why they become active (epigenetics). 'Functional' ERVs might be the cause of disease, the effect of disease, or both (the effect, but perpetuates the disease, what I think is going on with ERVs and cancer).

But one thing is certain thus far-- You do not want ERVs to be functional."[9]

Pro's assumptions
That no supernatural acts can occur
Red herring. My view on God is irrelevant evolution. As there are many who believe in both God and evolution
No Creator had any influence on the earth
Red herring again. Above applies
Out of space

Sources in link below.
[1]http://tny.cz...

Muted

Con

The fossil record. The argument about good sorting is actually bogus. Dinosaurs are regularly found above the K/T (Now K/Pg, the dinosaurs were found in the Paleocene region, http://creation.com..., and so the boundary was shifted, violating a defintion for a formation) boundary. After much research, Karl Werner said, "We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today [within dinosaur fossil layers] including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
"The vertebrates"animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals"show this same pattern."
In fact, 432 mammal species have been found in spite of "good sorting." http://creation.com...
Even modern birds are found, showing clearly that evolution has not occurred. http://www.youtube.com...

Pro"s arguments about having a wall-to-wall of fossils is a strawman. I have shown quite clearly that such is not the prediction any creationists has made. He is trying to falsify a non-existent prediction.

I take fault with Pro"s statement, "Many, if not all Cambrian organisms appear different, and more primitive than their later relatives." This is simply not true. http://creation.com...

My mistake in not linking to the jellyfish. http://www.nytimes.com...; geology.gsapubs.org/content/30/2/147.full.pdf (Ripple marks show clearly that the sediment was not laid down slowly over time)

Pro states, "This isn't a prediction of evolution itself." Well, then Darwin certainly made no evolutionary predictions. "No organism wholly soft can be preserved" Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, first published 1859, quote taken from p. 422 of the 6th edition, 1872 (reprinted 1902)

"Scientists don't claim that fossils have take a long time to form. Thus this is just a red herring." http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com... I also note Pro"s liberal alleged discovery of my use of the fallacy of "Red Herring." I have shown him to be false. He uses the allegations to sidetrack from the main issue.

Once again, Pro makes claims for creationists and then proceed to debunk them. I will not respond to the strawman about fossilization until he clearly cites a creationist source that promotes such a thing. Otherwise he has to remove it from this debate. I appeal for a conduct point against him.

Chromosome fusion. Pro asks the seemingly innocent question, "Why would human chromosome 2 have virtually the same genetic layout as is found in the two chimp chromosomes?" Firstly, it is chimp chromosome 2, and the evolutionary story goes that chimps and humans are from the same clade. Hence, we would expect to find similarities because of the supposed split.

Pro gives the irrational argument that the telomere and centromere has nonfunctional regions that were removed. Now he commits an argument to silence. The fact is that there is no "remnants." He goes on a hand-waving attack against my arguments by completely ignoring them. So does PZ Meyers.

Meyers state, "What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed."
I went to the link. No reference. Mostly ad hominem by Meyers.

He further states that Bergman et al. expects an intact telomere. He knows, however, as do Bergman, that that portion is degenerate. So he proceeds to ignore evolutionary predictions made in the past, and cite data from the present that contradicts the predictions, and goes on to say that Bergman is unrealistic. Bergman et al. simply were refuting a prediction. Meyers ignored that, and goes on an ad hominem against Bergman. He proceeds to cite the totally unrealistic analogy of a car crash. That was a total Red Herring.

Pro now goes on to ignore the evidence I presented about ERV, presenting a case amounting to an argument to silence. He pleads specially to "very new research," implying that what we already know can be disregarded in the light of as yet unrevealed supposed evidence for his case.
I will urge both Pro and potential voters to re-read my statements, which I will repeat. "For example, they control mice embryological development, promoter-sequences are derived from them. They initiate transcription. In fact, ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the genome."
These transcription do not deal with diseases at all. Pro ignores these. Instead, he claims that they are evidences for evolution. He states that it is the result of "salvaging."

Pro states, "Complete ERVs are recombined, mutated, and methylated into junk. When they regain some semblance of functionality, they cause disease!" Notice the bad logic within the argument. First, complete ERVs become junk. Then, they gain back some functionality, causing disease. This is first of all an argument to silence, as there is no reference to which I can check it out. Secondly, disease such as HIV is caused by observable infection, not by some unknown ERV that has been incorporated into the genome.

Pro states: "My view on God is irrelevant evolution. As there are many who believe in both God and evolution" Which view causes cognitive dissonance.

Conclusion: I find fault first of all with Pro"s use of wikipedia (WP) as a credible source alongside blogs. Both are not credible as neither is peer-reviewed and Wp even has a non-credible source policy.
I find fault with Pro"s use of sources that has no references which would enable me to further my own research into the matter. I cannot simply rely on his assertions.
I find fault with Pro"s making up claims for creationists. In effect, he uses straw man. At least twice, too.
I find fault with Pro raising a blog and quoting ad hominem portions from that blog, sidetracking from the evidence submitted.
I find fault with Pro"s bad grammar and spelling. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Pro

The Fossil Record

The main point of the fossil record's sorting is that we don't find a fossil of a life form existing in the wrong geological era. Something such as a dinosaur above the K/T boundary wouldn't refute the argument. The cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is not fully determined, for this reason it could be possible for a dinosaur to live up to the Paleocene period(such as gradual extinction).
Many scientists, however, dismiss the "Paleocene dinosaurs" as re-worked, that is, washed out of their original locations and then re-buried in much later sediments[1].

Arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms) existed before the dinosaurs. We know that dinosaurs existed with mammals[2] and many look like modern day mammals.

Con claims I straw-man creationism,however he straw-mans my argument. I never said this was predicted by creationists,as this was an argument against creationism. Creationists say fossils formed in the flood[3] and I was giving a problem with this.

Con also ignores my example of an ancestor of a Cambrian creature. Furthermore my entire rebuttal to the Cambrian Explosion is just about ignored.

"Ripple marks show clearly that the sediment was not laid down slowly over time"
" Well, then Darwin certainly made no evolutionary predictions. "No organism wholly soft can be preserved" Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, first published 1859, quote taken from p. 422 of the 6th edition, 1872 (reprinted 1902)"

I did say fossilization can happen quickly. What relevance does fossilization have to evolution? Darwin was talking about fossilization[4]. This wasn't a prediction of any type of biological evolution. As I said above

"If it was and if evolution is false then we would see an abundance of soft bodied fossils."

Moreover,Con commits the fallacy of composition. The Composition fallacy is "Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will too"[5]

"Well, then Darwin certainly made no evolutionary predictions"

1.Darwin has made evolutionary predictions
2.Darwin talks about fossilization
3.Therefore fossilization is a prediction of evolution.

The link you gave never says that fossilization has to be slow or that quick fossilization cannot occur.

You're misunderstanding my last argument in the Cambrain explosion section. It was an argument against creationism based off what they teach. That fossils were formed in the flood[3],that organisms such as dinosaurs and humans coexisted[6]and a literal interpretation of Genesis[7].
It's the equivalent of me wanting a conduct point against you for claiming that the Cambrian fossils have no evolutionary ancestors without citing a pro-evolution source.

Chromosome fusion

We do find similarities as I said in my opening arguments. Why would we have virtually the same genetic layout just because we're in the same claude? Can you give a source on this prediction?

"Pro gives the irrational argument that the telomere and centromere has nonfunctional regions that were removed. Now he commits an argument to silence. The fact is that there is no "remnants."

As stated in my opening arguments, there are remnants and they match with chimps[8][9]

"I went to the link. No reference. Mostly ad hominem by Meyers."

The reference to this is here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm not saying he didn't ad hominem,but Myers didn't "mostly" ad hominem. He called the author crazy,ignorant and incompetent, yet these are very short and don't take up most of the article.

"He knows, however, as do Bergman, that that portion is degenerate. So he proceeds to ignore evolutionary predictions made in the past, "

Can you give a source saying this portion was predicted to be something else other than degenerate. Even if it was a prediction made in the past,shouldn't Bergman be focusing on what more recent papers say?

"Meyers ignored that, and goes on an ad hominem against Bergman. He proceeds to cite the totally unrealistic analogy of a car crash. That was a total Red Herring."

Myers just called Bergman's expectation "unrealistic".
Myers didn't insult Bergman here. How is the car analogy unrealistic and a red herring?

ERVs

The post did acknowledge that there exists functional components of ervs. Yes there are transcriptional contribution of LTRs to genes' promoters.

1) Not only are most ERVs not at a loci that even makes it possible for them to contribute to transcriptional activity, but most ERVs have recombined into solo LTRs. Since only the LTRs of active full-length ERVs can contribute [10], even most ERVs in the right position have no effect. Just as with enJSRVs, these ERVs represent a very small percentage of the whole.

2) The actual genes of these ERVs contribute nothing—only their promoter sequence-rich LTRs do. Again, just as with enJSRVs, these are examples of functional ERV components, rather than functional ERVs.

It is the same with every case observed; again, there are no "functional ERVs;" only a small percentage of ERVs with functional components.

But it's a moot point, because we know that ERVs are insertions:

The hallmark of an insertion is a displacement of chromosomal DNA, and the hallmark of insertion by integrase is the presents of target site duplication, due to the way it attacks the 5' and 3' phosphodiester bonds with an offset of a few base pairs [11]. Since full-length ERVs are accompanied by target site duplications and DNA displacement, they are necessarily endogenized/fixed proviral insertions.

So any functional components are necessarily post-insertion exaptations, and the fact that they are necessarily insertion means that they can not be part of any 'original design.' The issue of functionality is simply a red herring, when discussing how ERVs necessitate common ancestry.

For an understanding of scaffolding (p.365-366) and exaptation (p.361-363), including various "paths to exaptation," refer to the first half (p.358-366) of "The Evolution of Complex Organs" by Dr. Gregory (2008).[12][13]

" This is first of all an argument to silence, as there is no reference to which I can check it out. Secondly, disease such as HIV is caused by observable infection, not by some unknown ERV that has been incorporated into the genome."

There was a source. In the rich text it picked up on it,but when it posted it didn't make it a link

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"According to a study published in 2005, no HERVs capable of replication had been identified; all appeared to be defective, containing major deletions or nonsense mutations. This is because most HERVs are merely traces of original viruses, having first integrated millions of years ago."[14]


"Which view causes cognitive dissonance."

How is that relevant?

" I find fault first of all with Pro"s use of wikipedia (WP) as a credible source alongside blogs. Both are not credible as neither is peer-reviewed and Wp even has a non-credible source policy."

This is a good example of the conformation bias. WP cites their claims and the bloggers are very experienced in their fields of science. I wasn't going to go after con's sources,but creation.com is not peer-reviewed in fact the argue against peer review.[15]


"I find fault with Pro"s use of sources that has no references which would enable me to further my own research into the matter."

Many of the sources do include a "further reading" section

"I find fault with Pro"s making up claims for creationists"

This was a misunderstanding of what I said.


Conclusion:

Con hasn't met his BOP.
Con's refutations do not stand.
Con straw-mans evolution, going after fossilization.
Con ignored my arguments against the flood sorting the fossils.
Vote Pro

Sources
[1]http://tny.cz...
Muted

Con

The Fossil record
Pro states, "The main point of the fossil record's sorting is that we don't find a fossil of a life form existing in the wrong geological era."
That"s the problem. Pro ignores all the out-of-place fossils that I cited. His model is fluid and can not be falsified.

The problem he cites with the Flood has no basis in facts. He states that we should expect such and such but do not find such. This is obviously a prediction he tries to falsify.

"Con also ignores my example of an ancestor of a Cambrian creature. Furthermore my entire rebuttal to the Cambrian Explosion is just about ignored." I did not ignore it. I dismissed it with more evidence. It appears my citing anything is irrelevant as Pro does not seem to check it out at all. He pulls all my arguments from the facts on which they are based and claims that the facts that he cite have been ignored.

Pro then reverses his stand on fossils, saying they are not part of evolution. Why would he even start with it?
Pro claims that I use the fallacy of composition. However, his (2) is evidently false. Darwin does not merely "talk" about fossilization. They are an integral part of his book. He makes predictions about fossilization in tandem with his other predictions. Thus the fallacy is not.

Pro evidently does not understand the use of the term, "Slowly over time", in geology.

Pro claims that his "predictions" were based off creationists teachings. Well, his logic is a non sequitur.

He then goes on to claim that his arguments about the Cambrian explosion is equivalent to wanting a conduct point against me. He wants me to cite a pro-evolution source that says there is no evolutionary ancestors. Why would I?
The basic evolutionary claim is that "simple" suddenly exploded into the "complex" Cambrian. Pro provides no logical reasoning for which to accept this. In fact, this is a non sequitur.

Chromosome fusion:
There are predictions that do not go into print. The source I cited, Bergman et al., states the prediction, not clearly, admittedly, but it still is stated. With sources.

Yes, Meyers had a very short article, and a very short attack. FULLY HALF the article was ad hominem.

Bergman"s expectation was the same as others before genome sequencing. As shown by the sources in the cited article.

The car analogy deals with physical interactions not associated with divergence. The supposed split between chimp and humans is not a primarily physical event, but rather biological, thus Meyers analogy is unrealistic and sidetracks from the main issue.

ERVs
Pro admits the evidence I presented, but the goes on to dismiss these in favour of his preconceived ideas of ERVs. I showed quite clearly that supposed ERVs are essential for transcription. That, he does not accept and does not respond to. His entire claim to ERVs collapses when he acknowledges the truthfulness of my arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org... WP wants verifiability, not truth.

creation.com All CMI articles other than feedback are peer-reviewed. Pro makes claims contrary to facts. Thus he should have a conduct point demerited.

"Further reading": Further reading into blogs and WP. Verifiable, maybe, but truthful? Not necessarily.

Conclusion.
Conduct Point: Con.
Pro makes predictions for creationists. This he admits when he states that the argument is based off creationist writings. He makes no citation to any direct claims by creationist of this type. Furthermore, he accuses me falsely of making his arguments a strawman but refuse to cite the creationist.

Sources: Con.
Pro uses WP and science blogs, while Con uses a peer-reviewed creationist website.

Arguments: Tie
Neither was the more convincing in Con"s opinion. This was really a back and forth with no substantial discussion.

Grammar: Con
Pro makes basic grammatical and spelling mistakes.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I am officially convinced that BillDekel is a votebomb. Please counter-vote. What is specation? How was I rude? COUNTER VOTE BOMBS EVERYBODY!!!
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Well, yeah, if you explain it that way.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
The resolution states, Creationism (Con) vs. Evolution (Pro). I think that was quite clear
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I don't understand the arguments, so I can't vote. That's not a complaint; the arguments were properly directed at those who do understand them.

I'm just here to comment that it is remarkable that neither party established who was arguing for which side in the first round. Only in the second round was it determined that Pro argues for evolution, and Con against. Please, in the future, let your resolutions be statements, as, "Resolved: Evolution is true, and creationism is false." That way, "Pro" and "Con" mean something.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Contention noted. Arguments were bad from both sides in my opinion. We have to narrow it down to one or two topics and go technical! :D
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Jh

I don't think "antibiotic resistance" is as good as the ERV argument. As it doesn't really prove common descent.

I would like to note I only cited WP 3 times and one time it wasn't really important.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
I cannot vote due to not confirming my identity yet, but I really cannot decide. Pro forgot the important argument: Antibiotic resistance!

"While a spontaneous or induced genetic mutation in bacteria may confer resistance to antimicrobial drugs, genes that confer resistance can be transferred between bacteria in a horizontal fashion by conjugation, transduction, or transformation. Thus, a gene for antibiotic resistance that evolves via natural selection may be shared."-Wikipedia

Both parties did make convincing statements, but their sources are not really accurate.

creation.com is made by creationists and has a somewhat pro-creationist bias, in my opinion, and has sometimes found to cherry pick.
wikipedia.org is edited by everyone, and is not reliable as anyone can put whatever they want on there.

My votes:
Agreed before/after debate PRO
Better conduct: PRO
S&G: CON
Arguments: CON
Sources: PRO
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Magic8000MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this debate was even all round, the arguments were not the higest quality towards the end of the debate, so I'll just award sources, to Con.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Magic8000MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counterinh an obvious votebomb
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
Magic8000MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is very rude as in past debates. Con accuses Pro of bad spelling+grammar however I only saw Con make these mistakes. Such as spelling "definition" as "defintion". Con attacks Pro?s sources yet Wikipedia is 10 times more reliable than creation.com. I know CMI?S journal is peer reviewed but that doesn't speak for the entire website. None of Pro?s arguments were refuted. Con trys to get out of answering the objections to the flood because the flood only makes sense as local not global.