Evolution isn't supported with scientific evidence (4)
I am a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that God created everything about 6,000 years ago and that there was a massive, worldwide flood about 4,400 years ago.
Full resolution: The theory of evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it is either flawed, irrelevant, or could be reasonably explained from a Creation viewpoint.
Since evolution is taught in schools as science and Creation is not, Con's job is to provide an undeniable confirmation of evolution that couldn't possibly be logically interpreted or explained from a Creation perspective. The burden of proof will be on Con to show beyond reasonable doubt that evolution can and did happen. (Attacking the Bible and using majority opinion do not count as scientific evidence of evolution.)
Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Science - Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Evolution is supposedly scientific so it should be fully verified and proven through observation and experimentation.
Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.
I admit that I can't completely prove Creation to be true empirically, thus Creation is religious.
Round 1 - Con explains how evolution supposedly happens and provides several proofs indicating that it has happened in the past (not just acceptance).
Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain Con's evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence (No new evidence/arguments added).
My first matter that I am supposed to address is how evolution works.
To begin, I will start at the undeniable existence and workings of the cell. The existence of cells I would hope you would not waste time to rebuttal that, as we have both observed and used cells as bases of research. Now then, cells contain a nucleus which contains the DNA for that particular cell. DNA (more specifically Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid) is the "genetic coding" for life as we know it. DNA will derive how a cell grows, what it produces, interactions with other cells, etc. We have yet to find any lifeform not made of cells (excluding the realm of viruses, which are scientifically argued between being seen as a lifeform and not as they cannot reproduce without assistance, however their structure still resembles aspects within cells, and furthermore evolve themselves and assist evolution of others). Evolution is centered around cell activity, particularly in the mutation of its DNA.
When a cell splits, it's DNA is copied to accommodate both new daughter cells. During the copying of DNA, it is not uncommon for mutations to occur (deletion, addition, inversion, etc). This is a keystone part in evolution. The mutation of DNA. The above splitting (mitosis) would mostly account for single cell evolution and other more primitive lifeforms. In larger lifeforms such as ourselves and other plants and animals, mutations occur in meiosis, which is the creation of the gametes or sex cells. There are specific mutations that occur during the second round of splitting (gametes split twice) known as crossing over. This helps with variation, as well as the other mutations I had mentioned earlier (inversion, addition, and deletion).
The other final key part of evolution is that of variation, isolation, and natural selection. Variation occurs in the mutations described above, and are often very simply differences within a species. However, some variations will lead the members of a species within the variation to behave differently (I'll return to this later). Isolation, is when a species is separated (generally speaking its a land change), and living conditions change. Otherwise, isolation can be when a variant of one species is separated from the rest of the species. Natural selection is in all basics "survival of the fittest". Does one variation help the species in its environment? If so, the better equipped, the better mutated, the better variation of the species thrives and lives on to continue with that mutation. Whether the weaker is preyed on, isn't chosen as mates, or some other cause, the lesser variation dissolves. In the case of isolation, the previous variation may likely still exist. This of course isn't without saying that not every new variation is advantageous, and may die off themselves.
I could pull various sources to support the evidence above, but I felt these were sufficient:
My next task is to provide proofs of past occurrence.
Evolution tends to imply a common ancestor, mostly because via variation as species split they would have an ancestor at some point in order to create chains from evolving species to species. For this section, I will point to cladistics, genetic similarity, embryology, the fossil record, and homologous structures.
Cladistics can be considered by some to mostly be used for classification purposes, but it also can be grounds to imply common ancestry. Cladistics is a tree diagram based sorting that compares organisms with similar qualities or variations. By tracking back different variations and when they appear among different species, we can determine that certain species may have had a common ancestor based on similar traits.
Genetic similarity is rather basic, and is made under the appointed fact of how all life on earth contains the same types of sequences in genes, also suggesting similar ancestors. As an example, Humans share the oh so classic 96% genes with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, 80% with cows, 70% with mice, and then there are closer DNA resemblances with primates. This is not to say quite that we evolved from them, but that we at some point had a common ancestor.
Embryology is an entire field dedicated to the research of embryos, and then further relating to evolution by examining similar embryos. Through the studying of embryos and their development, we can determine embryos within the same species and chains develop in similar patterns, and also share similar characteristics, even during phases of specialization.
Our fossil record is another staggering piece of evidence, that not only can be dated to go much farther back than 6,000 years ago, but it can also bring up different species, and we can see them develop and how they relate to one another by structure. The most infamous transition of evolution would be that from dinosaurs to birds.
Homologous Structures also point to common ancestors, in which they are structures where different sections can be similarly identified as to having common ancestors. Such an ancestral structure has been found particularly in invertebrates.
Through the developments of the above, we can identify chains of evolution with much evidence and reason. There are chains for birds(Archaeopteryx), chains for elephants (Phosphatherium), chains for dogs(Miacis)- have a ball and look up one of your favorite animals to see what prehistoric ancestor we have dug up for them. As we speak, you're most likely sitting on a product of evolution. The vestigial tail that all humans have (Its called your coccyx!). Why might the creator with his design have, how would one say- messed up?
Britannica here has a wonderful amount of pages and evidences that sum up many supporting evidences of evolution:
Other sites to use for information:
I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. My contention is that evolution can’t happen and there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past.
Evolution Can’t Happen
Con starts by summarizing what evolution is and how it supposedly happens. The idea is that hereditary mutations alter the gene codes of animals, giving them different traits and characteristics. Then natural selection “weeds” out the bad mutations, leaving only the better mutated animals to reproduce. It sounds simple, but all this is based on the assumption that there are helpful mutations in the first place.
Mutations are random mistakes or “typos” that occur during DNA replication. Mutations cause all sorts of diseases and deformities. No one has ever observed a mutation add new, useful information to the genome. Genes and traits are carefully interlocked with each other, such that one gene could code for many traits and one trait could be coded for by many genes. They all delicately work together in the same way the gears of a watch would. Mutations, which are random, confused errors in this machine are never beneficial.
“We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1958).
I want to make it clear though that when I say no mutations are beneficial or helpful, I mean that no mutations add new, beneficial information to the genome. It is true that some mutations that disrupt, destroy, or disorder certain preexisting genes can result in beneficial outcomes in certain conditions, however these mutations are not truly beneficial in regards to the level of progression of the genetic information.
In the 1900’s, many scientists spent years, some even their entire lives, irradiating fruit flies, simulating mutations that would only be seen from many millions of years of mammalian generations. The mutations caused deletions, inversions, translocations, etc (what would normally be seen from naturally occurring mutations) in the DNA of the flies. These experiments were done in the hopes of proving that random mutations could add beneficial genetic information that the flies could use. The scientists observed hundreds of different mutations with hundreds of different effects on the poor flies. Not one mutation was beneficial. Flies that didn’t die from the mutations had all kinds of abnormal deformities and impairments. Here is a partial list of the results: http://cgslab.com...;
“Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations.”—Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
Similar experiments have been done with other plants and animals all showing that no mutations could possibly be helpful.
As we have seen, a mutation will never improve an organism by increasing genetic complexity. Yet Con wants to suggest that billions upon billions of beneficial mutations, all working together, could “evolve” a macromolecule into a human. I would like for Con, in the next round, to give an example of an unequivocally beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic information.
Evolution Hasn’t Happened
Con first mentions the study of cladistics, used to form diagrams showing lineages of ancestral evolution based on similarities of different species. This arrangement back in time is however based on the assumption that the different animals evolved in the first place and that similarities are due to evolution.
Con states that humans have a 96% genetic similarity with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, 80% with cows, etc, proving that at some point in time humans had common ancestors with all these animals. There are genetic similarities, but they in no way prove common ancestry. Similarities could be the results of a common designer. Two Microsoft programs would have thousands of similarities in their code because of a common designer. It is a fact that similarities exist. Different people can interpret this fact in different ways. The Creationist’s interpretation is that similarities exist because the same intelligent designer created all the animals. The evolutionist’s interpretation is that similarities are due to common ancestry.
“If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.”—Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly (1923).
Is Con suggesting that if Creation were true, different species would absolutely have to have completely different amino acids, proteins, cells, tissues, organs, fluids, and structures? That would be pointless and wasteful. Genetic similarities would be expected from Creation. They would also be expected from Evolution. Thus similarities can’t prove either one. And the fact that two animals may share more genetic similarity than others could be because they have more identical structures and functions than others. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with ancestral relatedness.
The situation is the same with embryological similarities. It is true that embryos of different animals all look similar during development. They all start as tiny balls and gradually grow and develop different parts. However, instead of these similarities proving common descent, they could reveal that the same intelligent designer planned and devised how these embryos would start out and how they would progress.
Con uses the homologous structures argument which is again based on the presumption that similarity proves relatedness. Homologous structures could be the results of either common ancestry or a common designer. A Honda Civic and a Honda Accord are different cars but have many similarities and interchangeable parts. This is due to a common designer with a common plan for both cars. Con must explain why similarities could not possibly be interpreted in other non-evolutionistic ways in order for his point to be valid.
Con next mentions the fossil record, and states that fossils are dated at over 6,000 years. Of course I would argue that dating methods are inaccurate, but that is a topic for another debate.
Con implies that the fossil record shows transitions between different kinds of animals expected from evolution, e.g. dinosaurs to birds. Since he has only mentioned Archaeopteryx, Phosphatherium, and Miacis, those are the ones I shall rebut and he shall defend.
Although Archaeopteryx is often claimed by evolutionists to be the perfect missing link between dinosaurs and birds, this is not the case. Archaeopteryx’s hollow leg and wing bones, modern bird feathers and asymmetrical wings all indicate that it was just a bird. Evolutionists argue that Archaeopteryx has reptilian features such as teeth and claws. However, fossils of obvious birds such as Hesperornis had teeth and several modern birds such as touracos and hoatzins have clawed wings. Additionally, fossils of modern birds have been found in strata below Archaeopteryx!
“Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils.”—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46
So one option is that Archeopteryx was just a unique bird. It is also very possible that Archaeopteryx was simply a well prepared and arranged fraud used to support evolution, as Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor were.
Phosphatherium, a pig-like creature, is stated by my opponent to be evidence of elephant evolution. Firstly, all fossils that have been found of Phosphatherium were a few teeth. The fact that evolutionists can then explain the animal’s entire body, face, diet, and what it evolved into should deserve at least some skepticism for obvious reasons. Here is what Phosphatherium really looked like:
Next, even if it could be certain that this pig-like animal existed, all that it would prove is that a pig-like animal existed. Extrapolating into saying that the pig changed into an elephant wouldn’t be scientific since there aren’t obvious features (at least that I have seen) that show that Phosphatherium was evolving into an elephant but not done yet. If Con disagrees and points at a transitional feature, he should show how this feature can be derived from a couple teeth that very possibly could have been weathered or damaged due to natural causes.
Con now points toward Miacid, an extinct weasel-like creature. Again, all this proves is that a weasel-like creature once lived and is now extinct. Many other animals have gone extinct as well. Con hasn’t provided an explanation for how he knows that this animal evolved into something else.
Lastly, Con argues that the tailbone, or coccyx is a vestigial “leftover” from evolution. He is simply wrong. The coccyx is an anchor point that connects to many muscles, ligaments, and tendons. Additionally, it helps with balance and support while sitting.
Sources: Listed throughout argument
LostSoul88 forfeited this round.
Although Con has forfeited in Round 2, I have allowed him extra time to write and finish his argument which can be found here:
I will be referring to the document in that link during my argument. I apologize for the inconvenience, and I hope Con knows that he may get deducted points during voting for improper conduct.
Con seems to misunderstand my stance on mutations. In my Round 2 argument, I never said that all mutations are inherently harmful. Nor did I accuse Con of stating that all mutations are inherently beneficial. I did say that mutations never add beneficial information to the genome, meaning that all mutations are either harmful or neutral (actually neutral mutations are still damaging to the genome but are either too minor to be detected or are not expressed and are hence neutral regarding the phenotype of the organism). Con is therefore strawmanning my position.
Con attacks my analogies comparing the DNA code to machines because machines can’t replicate, aren’t made of cells, etc. He has completely missed the point of the comparison. The idea being conveyed was that genes and traits are delicately interweaved with each other, such that one gene could affect many traits and one trait could be affected by many genes. They coordinate and work together in the same way the parts of a machine would. Adding an aimless change into this carefully interlaced system would not be expected to improve it, which is why mutations that enhance the genome have never been observed. Whether or not a machine can reproduce is irrelevant since Con has not addressed the point of the analogy.
Con attacks the fruit fly experiments I described, saying that mutations induced by radiation were more unstable and likely to be harmful than natural mutations. He says “Hereditary [natural] mutations… prove more stable in their precision for singular traits to be affected than induced mutations in provided experiment”. This is a poor argument. As I have said before, genes and their expressions as phenotypes are all integrated together and one trait is usually controlled by many different genes. In a simpler system where one gene codes for one trait, another codes for another different trait, and so on, changing a single characteristic via mutation would be easier since genes are independent from each other. But in the complicated network that exists in the genome, changing one gene would randomly affect many other genes, traits, proteins etc. No matter how a mutation is induced, it will always be deleterious to the genome.
I will now refute the examples Con gave of mutations that have been observed to add beneficial information.
Skin Colors: Although Con explains how different skin tones would have advantages and disadvantages in certain environments, he is assuming that different skin colors arose due to mutations. The source he gave only explained a theory of why skin colors evolved, but never proved that they came about via mutations. From a Creation perspective, the different variations of skin colors were probably already in the gene pools of humans when they were first created.
AI Milano: AI Milano, a mutant form of a protein that assembles high density lipoproteins, can act as an antioxidant. However, the mutation has sacrificed information as it is not as good as doing what it is supposed to. In fact, 70% of the proteins synthesized by AI Milano bind together in pairs, reducing their usefulness. More information in the source below.
CCR5 Mutation: The CCR5 receptor’s job is to allow chemokines, or signaling proteins, into cells. However, the HIV virus also enters cells via the CCR5 receptor. So when a mutation damages certain genes, crippling the receptor so that it no longer functions, the carrier of the mutation will be resistant to HIV. However the beneficial outcomes were still the results of a loss of information in the genome. In my Round 2 argument (fourth paragraph) I stated that beneficial mutations exist, but beneficial mutations that add genetic information don’t. I challenged Con to give examples of the latter.
Giraffe Neck: Con claims that the giraffe’s long neck is due to a mutation. We haven’t observed this but Con states that transitional fossils confirm it. Since he only gave 3 transitional fossils in his Round 1 argument, none of which had to do with giraffe evolution, adding more now would be violating the debate structure set in Round 1. Therefore this example is not valid.
Evolution Hasn’t Happened
Con’s response to my similarities rebuttal is a bit confusing and I’m having trouble understanding it. I will attempt to refute his claims from what I can get out of his writing.
Con says “Similarity in creationism has no explanation… “, when I have given a perfectly reasonable explanation in my Round 2 argument: a common designer. I even gave quotes and analogies to support my argument. Con argues that I haven’t explained differentiation, but I don’t there is a need for me to explain it. Animals are different because they aren’t all exactly the same. In fact, I think differentiation would be more of a problem for the evolutionist. Because if similarity is always applied to being the result of common ancestry, then many times similarities would disprove evolution. For example, the eye of the octopus is much more similar to the human eye than it is to the eyes of fish. Does this mean that humans are more closely related to octopi than fish are?
Con next gets into the topic of interbreeding. I think Con has misunderstood my position. I don’t believe in fixity of species, I believe in fixity of Genesis created kinds. If two animals can produce offspring, they are the same kind of animal (although that is not necessarily to say that if two animals can’t interbreed, they aren’t the same kind). As for similar animals not being able to breed, that can occur due to mutation and diversification.
In Round 2, I explained that Archaeopteryx was just a bird. It had modern bird feathers, asymmetrical wings (designed for flight), perching feet, hollow bones, and many more features indicating it was a flying bird. Additionally, nothing in its anatomy was holding Archaeopteryx back from flying. I have explained in my last argument that supposedly reptilian features in Archaeopteryx are not exclusive to reptiles and can be found in birds as well. Con has not rebutted these explanations, but has instead argued that Archaeopteryx has a tail. I will point out that all birds have tails (tail feathers) which they use to help balance their weight and control flight. The Long-tailed Widowbird has is an example of a bird with an extremely long tail compared to its body size, much like Archaeopteryx.
In the last round, I showed that fossils of modern birds have been found in strata below Archaeopteryx. Con, in response to this, has said “Rock layers are commonly prone to deformities… farther down is irrelevant.” This is not an adequate explanation, as according to uniformitarian and evolutionary geology, rocks farther down the Geologic Column should always the older than the ones above them. And Con hasn’t described how a “deformity” could cause modern bird fossils to drop down below Archaeopteryx by (supposedly) 75 million years of strata.
Con responds to my rebuttal of Phosphatherium as an intermediate by saying
“[Phosphatherium] Is a starting lineage fossil… Succeeding fossils include eritherium, divergence in the mastodon line… “
I take it that Con has conceded his claim concerning Phosphatherium since he has not addressed my refutation of it and has instead brought up new fossils. This would be violation of the debate structure since I made it clear that no new evidences/arguments were to be introduced after Round 1 (unless I requested of him to do so). Thus I will ignore eritherium and all the rest.
As for Miacis, Con states “Uncontested/Dropped: Lack of Attack”. This is not true, as I have attacked Miacis in Round 2. All Miacis proves is that a weasel-like creature went extinct. An intermediate is supposed to be an animal that is in the process of evolving from one kind of animal to another. Since I couldn’t find any features that indicate that Miacis was an intermediate, I asked for Con to show some. Since Con has not done so, Miacis is no longer a valid argument (because if Con shows transitional features in his next argument, I won’t be able to rebut them).
Lastly, Con asserts that the coccyx is still a “leftover” from evolution. He states that humans have tails during embryo development. This is not true, as the “tail” that Con speaks of is just an enlargement of the spinal column so that nerves in the spine can send signals to muscles, organs, and limbs to grow. Con asserts that the coccyx only serves as an attachment point for muscles before the coccyx fuses. Even if this were correct, that would mean that the coccyx still performs a function for around 40 years, meaning that it can’t be useless, and thus can’t be proof of evolution.
(Sorry if my argument seems a bit rushed and incomplete; I was very busy and didn’t have much time to work on it.)
In regards to your first paragraph, such a statement is contradictory in itself. My saying that "Mutations are not inherently "beneficial" nor "hurtful"" was a statement in my own defense which I further explained. Mutations are random, and in affecting the genome still may add harmful/neutral/and or beneficial information. If "damaging" the genome means affecting it, then yes its damaged all the time. However neutral mutations most often change genetic code while still coding for the same trait (Ex. UGU & UGC both = Cytosine). In adding beneficial information, you requested examples which I provided (and will defend) later.
The Machine analogy is something I still find faulty- To further this particular rebuttal, yes, every creature has a working code, which may be comparable to a machine to some standard. However machine code doesn't change, which is still upheld in biology and in genetic information. Reproduction via machine does very much address this problem. Furthermore, to say we are like machine in that our genes and traits work together like a machine is also flawed, as genes are the code itself (which changes) and traits are the resulting product of a gene, and the process is irreversible. Just because something is aimless as well does not mean it is fruitless. In fact on the analogy of machines, many aimless mistakes have been turned into inventions and benefitted society such as Penicillin, Pace Makers, and Plastic.
The fact that genes can affect multiple traits is something I both recognize and accept. However, not all genes are pleiotropic, and beyond that genes do not affect other genes (they are segments on DNA, excluding frame shift which is a mutation). Radiation, X-ray, otherwise induced chemicals observed in these experiments are unstable themselves, and are accepted generally as poisonous in excessive dosages, by which would be required for genomic mutations. These mutations are unstable mostly by method, and radiation-induced mutations often exhibit similar patterns to cancerous cells, which easily explains the multitude of deformations and unhealthy flies in general.
Regarding skin mutations, these can be observed even in today's modern culture. Skin genes in general are notably affected mostly by the mother's gene for skin, and also mutations. The mutation itself is in relation to melanin, and genetic mutations will control how much is used in creation of the skin. In our more primitive societies, our natural defenses such as skin played a huge role in our survival, as I had explained before how vitamin intake and resistance was important. Artic and costal diets affected this as well in relation to dark skin and vitamin intake. The mutations occur on the X chromosome as well as chromosome 15, hence why it is slightly more maternal.
Regarding AI-Milano, the dimers (protein pairs) do not restrict their functionality. The synthesized proteins which the original AI is coded for still form in the AI-Milano, and the AI-Milano dimers readily form HDL particles just as well the AI monomers.
CCR5 isn't damaged, it is deleted. This is still a result of change in the genome therefore being a "new" form of the genome. Still proving beneficial, the new genetic form of the genome is still beneficial overall within the genome. Besides, in other terms the receptor was mostly a flaw within "intelligent design".
I was requested to provide a beneficial mutation, and seeing as largely phenotypic mutation can't be observed without a decent sum of time, I felt the example was solid enough to fit with your request, by which this "new" example was brought up in relation to. The evolution of the giraffe neck included transitional fossils, yes, but the center point of the example was that the neck became longer, which in relation to their feeding habits was a beneficial mutation.
In relation to differentiation, the creationist view of similarity exhibits redundancy. Such as that between animal species only differentiated by mere color and perhaps body size (squirrels make a perfect example, dogs and cats too, among others). In relation to the octopus and human eye, sure, at some point along the line it is vaguely possibly that we had a common ancestor. However on the alternative of that, it is entirely possible that traits in some species evolved separately. This remains entirely within the realm of evolution as far as being explainable.
Interbreeding is interesting to go by, especially with Genesis fixation. An animal that can breed with another animal is the same kind of animal. Sure. How come there is an exception to the rule that if they can't breed, then they aren't dissimilar? if they are the same kind of animal, and can't breed, then would than imply they are not in fact the same kind of animal? I bring to question how a creationist actually determines what is same animal and not- Let lone, you bring up mutation and diversification, in which both are directly related to that which you stand against: Evolution!
Under evolution, I never stated that archaeopteryx couldn't fly. In fact, some reptiles of the dinosaur times flew (who doesn't love pterodactyls~!). So proving that archaeopteryx could fly doesn't weaken my case at all, in fact it could make it point to being an even more reasonable transitional fossil. In regards to its tail, archaeopteryx's tail was long AND bony. The majority of long bird tails (including your widowbird) have long tails in relation to their feathers (beautiful bird by the way).
To rock deformities, I point to (if you actually looked at my source) monocline, anticline, and syncline folds. These happen rather easily in relation to fault movements and stress by geological movements. These movements create the rather extremely uneven rock layers we have, even at a present surface level. The sizes of these deformities can range from our pleasant small observable scale and large underground deformities. So by deformity some lower layers at a bend are actually from more recent times.
Anyways, I took the liberty of checking up further on your crow sized fossil, and found the information goes against you even more incriminatingly- So say your dating is correct and deformations are irrelevant. Crow "sized" does not imply it as a bird. In fact it more resembled a tiny (still crow "sized") dinosaur! With powerful hind legs and a tail. I have to thank you for enlightening me on an even earlier transitional fossil to birds, the find is both furthering for evolution and fails to deter me.
In relation to phosphatherium, I suppose I can under stand how bringing up more fossils might count as new evidence, and to that notion I will respect the concede to some degree... However, the point of mentioning the fossils succeeding phosphatherium was to mainly incite transitional features from it, particularly of its few teeth that it had shown which is something you pointed out. However, yes, it is at my fault for not pointing out this particular stance, and I will not defend it further. (In addition, I was low on space to use, so such details were omitted)
In relation to miacis, saying something existed and has gone extinct isn't a definitive attack in relation to similar previous attacks, so I felt the need to drop the matter personally. Once again though, in respect for the Pro's view of this I will also not defend this one. (This was also a matter in lack of space, by which I had preferred the previous two examples.
In relation to the coccyx, I would first like to point out that stem cells control embryotic development- not nerve messages and their latter reasoning. Also in addition to refuting that we grow tails as embryos is also asserted incorrectly, as these tails are lost still in that they become absorbed and lost still. Also, when we don't lose this tail (its usually flesh at this point by mutation, but on other occasions has up to five "tail-bones"), guess what- its a tail! and coccyx on other animals? Those if long enough, are also tails! Just as well, its "functionality" remains less than accurate. This small little (still an often fused, and at much led than 40, it fuses in teens and early adult ages) nub of skeleton hanging off the sacrum is not nearly as functional as the sacrum itself, and the "anchor" part of the argument is still useless in regards to the fusing. Just as well, looking at diagrams these "attachments" are already often attached in other places, namely the sacrum itself.
To conclude this debate, I want to firstly thank my partner for a good debate, however in light of their efforts I rebutted the majority of their claims, only dropping a small few for respect and preference reasons. Perhaps in time, evolution and human documentation will have played out long enough for evolution to be observed further. Creationism and Common Design, simply saying that creatures were spontaneously created may have appeased the scientific community at some point: But that was the 18th century and prior. Evolution has been studied repeatedly since, and it has improved upon itself more than evidence against it has. Science in itself is an evolving thing, we learn more as we move on, and being hard stuck on an idea that was human interpreted to begin with from ages past is not how one should go about moving forward.
May the best debater win, and voters find their own answers for themselves.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|