Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

I accept, but I would like a point of clarification.

Pro must give scientific evidence that life arose via natural means of evolution, correct?

PART 1: A CASE FOR MICROEVOLUTION

image courtesy of Berkeley University

Image ibid

“It is not the strongest of species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives...it is the one that is most adaptable to change.”

Image courtesy of Berkeley University.

image courtesy of Berkeley University

“Whenever antibiotics wage war on microorganisms, a few of the enemy are able to survive the drug because microbes are always mutating, some random mutations will eventually protect against the drug. Antibiotics used only when needed and as directed usually overwhelm the bugs. Too much antibiotic use selects the more resistant mutants. When patients cut short of the full course of the drug, the resistant strains have a chance to multiply and spread.”

I'd again like to thank my opponent for framing this debate, as well as explaining for everyone evolution via natural selection. While I am not arguing populations do change over time via natural selection, I would like to point out this fact is a voter for Con.

First let's take a look at the resolution. It states evolution is more likely than divine creation. This resolution is obviously talking about macro-evolution, as the presence of microevolution does not disprove divine creation. Macroevolution is the idea that life arose naturally, without divine intervention.

My first contention.
There is no evidence of life arising from non-living matter. All evidence points towards the fact that in nature, life must arise from more life. Because a divine creation is outside the "natural world", this fact of nature does not apply.

My second contention.
Natural selection is the removal or variation and biodiversity. We can see this in Pro's beetle example. We have a population of green and brown beetles. The green beetles are removed from the population because they are eaten at a faster rate. Eventually we reach a population of only brown beetles. We see through this example, provided by Pro might I add, that the variation in color is reduced by 50% through natural selection. We must then conclude that a growing level of diversity is not possible via natural selection. This brings me to my third contention.

My third contention.
Natural selection requires genetic variation. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
You'll see in this link that variation is the number one requirement for natural selection. Natural selection cannot occur without variation. Thus we know natural selection cannot happen in a population that arose from one organism, ie natural origin. This evidence shows that variable population with high levels of biodiversity, such as a divine creation, is required for a population to undergo natural selection.

Con states that it is impossible for natural selection to account for variations in species. This is wrong. Let's say that the green beetle migrates and is better adapted than the brown beetle in that environment. Consequently, they will each converge to make a variation within their species. Within time, specietation may occur.

When a pure bacterial culture is. attacked by a bacterial virus, the cul- 
ture will clear a f t e r a few hours due to destruction of the sensitive ceIls 
by the virus. However, after further incubation for a few hours, or sometimes 
days, the culture will often become turbid again, due t o the growth of a bac- 
terial variant which is resistant to the action of the virus. This variant can be 
isolated and freed from the virus and will in many cases retain i t s resistance 
to the action of the virus even if subcultured through many generations in the 
absence of the virus. While the sensitive strain adsorbed the virus readily, the 
resistant variant will generally not show any affinity to it. 
The resistant bacterial variants appear readily in cultur

A quick road map. Before jumping into my argument. First I would like to address my opponents argument as a whole, then address each contention. I will also give evidence for ID.

I would like to point out that Pro's argument is a moving target, which is poor conduct and a sign of a flawed argument.
1. The resolution is Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. If life arose via Intelligent Design, Evolution can still happen. But if life arose via Evolution, Intelligent Design cannot be true. Because the resolution is ID vs. Evolution, we must assume a scenario in which the two are conflicting. Thus in the context of the resolution this debate is about the origin of life. Pro now states it is not, thus his argument is a moving target.

2. I asked for clarification in my opening statement, specifically saying ,
"Pro must give scientific evidence that life arose via natural means of evolution"
Clarification was never given, also poor conduct. Because my statement was never corrected, I was left to assume it was correct. Pro stated two rounds later that
"Evolution does not explain how life got on earth"
This is a blatant and obvious moving target.

Unfortunately Pro has given no evidence for the origin of life via Evolution, so he has already lost the debate. At any rate, I will also show that his new argument about the diversity of life is incorrect.

1.Pro states "Con states that it is impossible for natural selection to account for variations in species. This is wrong. Let's say that the green beetle migrates and is better adapted than the brown beetle in that environment. Consequently, they will each converge to make a variation within their species. Within time, specietation may occur."
Unfortunately, no variation is created. At the beginning of the scenario, we have both green and brown beetles. At the end of the scenario, we still have green and brown beetles. The amount of diversity has not changed. I'm afraid Pro is confusing diversity with some other term.

2. I already demonstrated in round two that variation is required for natural selection. Here is a refresher of my source which states variation is the first pre-requisite for natural selection.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
If variation (diversity), is required for natural selection, it must exist before natural selection can occur. If variation exists before evolution, evolution CANNOT be responsible for variation.

I think we can plainly see life cannot arise by natural means. Therefore we must conclude life must arise from super-natural means. We also know order cannot arise from random naturally. Therefore such exquisite order exhibited in nature must be a product of intelligent design.

So in conclusion, evolution requires diversity and therefore cannot be responsible for diversity. Also, Pro's argument is a huge moving target. Thus the logical vote is for Con.

Pro states, "The fact is evolution explains the diversity of life."
This is a circular cause and consequence fallacy, where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. Pro states in round 3 that one of the condition required for natural selection is, "Organisms vary in their characteristics, even within a species". Because Pro himself accepts this statement, it flows to Con.

Pro also states that because we can create amino acids, therefore we can create life. This is a hasty generalization.
a)amino acids are not living matter.
b)we have never observe the creation of life from non-living matter
If it's never been observed and cannot be replicated then it cannot be considered scientific evidence. A vote for Con.

Pro failed his burden of properly framing a debate clarifying terms properly when asked to do so(a dropped point). A voter for Con

Pro's argument is a moving target (a dropped argument), which is also a voter for Con.

I urge a strong Con vote.

First I would like to address the BOP statement made by Pro. Unless otherwise specified BOP lies on Pro. If Pro wishes to share BOP or place it on CON, he/she should have specified from the beginning. This is once again poor conduct by Pro for not properly framing the debate. I hate to bring this up in the conclusion, but it is in response to a point of his final argument.

Pro failed to show evidence that life has been created from non-living matter.

Pro failed to show that show how natural selection creates variation. This point was dropped in the conclusion and has been accepted by Pro. Pro also failed to address the circular cause and consequence fallacy.

Pro's argument is a moving target. Since this point was dropped it has been accepted by Pro.

Pro failed his burden to properly frame the debate. This point was dropped and has been accepted by Pro.

The resolution states that evolution is more likely than intelligent design. BOP lies on Pro who failed to show any evidence that evolution is more likely than intelligent design. His argument had no solvency and he dropped all but one point. Therefore Pro has lost the debate.