The Instigator
Nathan.apologetics
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
jh1234lnew
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Evolution

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 4 votes the winner is...
jh1234lnew
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,065 times Debate No: 61710
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (4)

 

Nathan.apologetics

Con

The belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a hypothesis that is defended by the scientific community with a fiery passion, despite macro-evolution's (evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) contradictions with several key scientific Laws. The origins, insufficiency of substantial evidence and the inconsistencies of evolutionary dogma will be outlined in this debate.
Evolution is a hypothesis that contradicts physics,biology,the fossil record and common sense. If people want to believe evolution that's fine, just don't teach it in a science class as a well supported theory.
My only request is that my opponent lists sources to the information he/she presents. I will make sure that I list my sources as well.
To my opponent I wish you good luck, because your certainly going to need it.
jh1234lnew

Pro

Thanks to Nathan.apologetics for accepting. I am going to use arguments from an old debate of mine. The burden of proof is on me as I am arguing for a positive contention.

Point 1: Fossil Evidence
The logic of my argument will be presented in this form:
Premise 1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see transitional fossils.
Premise 2: We see transitional fossils.
Conclusion: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for Premise 1: Evolution states that organisms can change over time. Those organisms can be, sometimes, fossilized. If species X has the ancestor species A and is the ancestor of species B, then X shares some traits of both species and a fossilized X can be considered a transitional fossil.

Justification for Premise 2: Transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates to humans have been found. [1] In fact, there are no known gaps between dinosaurs and birds. [1] This falls in line with the predictions of evolution. Also, if we assume evolution to be true, then every fossil is a transitional fossil, between two or more species. However, the transitional fossils do line up, even if we do not assume evolution to be true. We have found a mostly complete set of those transitional fossils, from reptiles to birds, from reptiles to mammals, and from primates to man.

The conclusion follows from premises 1 and 2.

Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)

Definition of a species: "Related organisms capable of
interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

The logic goes like this:
P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.
P2: We see new species forming.
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for P1: Evolution predicts that new species can form.

Justification for P2: Two examples of new species will be listed.

1. Goatsbeards
Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced. They interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2]

2.Drosophila paulistorum
Drosophila paulistorum, a type of fruit fly, had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.[2]

The Conclusion follows from the premises.

Point 3: Observed Microevolution


Note: Macroevolution was proven in point 2. This is about microevolution, which some Creationists do accept.

Justification for Premise 2:

An experiment, done by professor Lenski over 20 years, found that a population of E.coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, despite the fact that E.coli were normally unable to do so.[3] A later study done in 2012 isolated the exact mutation that caused this, proving that no contamination has occured. [4] This is, by definition, microevolution, as no new species has been created.

Conclusion:
My conclusion goes like this:
P1: If microevolution and macroevolution both happen, then evolution is possible.
P2. If evolution is possible, and we see transitional fossils documenting change in the fossil record leading up to the creatures today, then evolution is true and is responsible for life on Earth today.
P3. P1 is true(point 2, point 3), therefore evolution is possible.
P4. P2 is true as we have a complete set of transitional fossils documenting transitions from primates to humans, from reptiles to birds, and etcetera.
Conclusion: Evolution is true, following from P3 and P4.

Irrelevant side note

This is an irrelevant side note to show that evolution can be reconcilable with Christian scripture, which my opponent appears to believe in. However, this is just a side note and is not part of a debate. The land animals came after the sea animals in the book of Genesis, showing that theistic evolution may be plausible. (https://www.biblegateway.com...)

SOURCES
[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Nathan.apologetics

Con

Point 1:No Fossil Evidence
Premise : If and only if evolution is true, then we should see hundreds of transitional fossil
Fact: There are only a handful of dubious transitional fossils
Conclusion: The Hypothesis of Evolution is (likely) false.

Justification for premise 1: There are literally millions of fossils. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if evolution has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years there would at least a several hundred transitional forms that have been documenting

Justification for Fact: The world has been looking for "missing links" for the past 200 years. Honest scientists admit that there are no legitimate missing links in the fossil record. Others in desperation forge transitional fossils in order to prove Evolution and and become famous. A good example of a desperate attempt to find a missing link is Nebraska Man.


In a 1922 issue of Illustrated London News, an article was published featuring a picture of Nebraska man drawn by Amedee Forestier saying the, "reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius." Imaginative was correct because this man and his mate were concocted from a single tooth. It turns out that the tooth was that of a pig.

In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: "I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid"[4]. One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.[6]

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, "I think the balance of probability is in favor of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family" [5].

Here is a quote from an honest scientist who fully believes in evolution, but admits that there are no valid transitional fossils. Dr Patterson who had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution[2] admitted "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument" . When Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland"s book Darwin"s Enigma:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... I will lay it on the line"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."[3]

Conclusion: Since there is not one "watertight" transitional fossils out of the tens of millions of fossils that have been found,it would be logical to conclude that evolution did not take place.

Point 2: No Observed Change in Kinds (macro evolution)

Definition of a kind:"a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category"[1]

Premise: If and only if macro evolution is true, then we should see new kinds forming.
Fact: Has never been observed.
Conclusion: The Hypothesis of Evolution is (likely) false.

Justification for the premise: If all living things have a common ancestor then there must have been millions of new kinds of animals that arose over the past billion years. We should be observing new kinds evolving every 1000 years or so. Or at least see species of animals in transition.

Justification for fact:The only time macro evolution has been documented was in The Princess and the Frog, but the magic formula in that case was a kiss not millions of years. The examples you gave were micro evolution. If you wanted to prove macro evolution you would have to show me a Drosophila paulistorum that produced an elephant
macro evolution micro evolution

Point 3 :Micro Evolution
"This is about microevolution, which some Creationists do accept." All creationist accept micro evolution because it is scientific. We don't accept the hypothesis of evolution because it involves macro evolution which is not scientific.

Definition of scientific: "regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science"
Micro evolution fits in this category while macro evolution doesn't because it doesn't conform to any principles of science.[1]
Examples: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,Tidal Friction,Genetics...etc

Conclusion:
My conclusion goes like this:
-Premise 1: If macro evolution happens, then evolution is possible.
-Premise 2. If we see transitional fossils documenting change in the fossil record leading up to the creatures today, then evolution is likely responsible for life on Earth today.
-Fact 1: Macro evolution has never been observed
-Fact 2: No "watertight" evidence of macro evolution has been found in the fossil record
-Conclusion: Evolution is not supported by scientific date, therefore the Hypothesis of Evolution belongs in the category of pseudoscience.

Irrelevant Side Note
-I hope you don't mind me using your format. I did used your format because it makes the rebuttal easier to read.
- Also bird were made be dinosaurs according to Genesis which goes against the evolutionary hypothesis that birds came from dinosaurs. Science has been wrong before but the bible hasn't. For example science use to teach the earth was flat even though Job 26:10 says the earth is round. Also science taught that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth"s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing"( Job 26:7). In short theistic evolution is not plausible unless you say that that Genesis was mistranslated.

Sources:
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] Patterson, C., Evolution, The British Museum of Master Books, Natural History, London,1978.
[3] Sunderland, L., Darwin"s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101"102, 1998. Patterson"s letter was written in 1979.
[4] Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, "Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America," American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2
[5] Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
-Also used google images
jh1234lnew

Pro

Thanks to con for responding. :)
Point 1: Fossil Evidence


Con claims that there are very few transitional fossils, most of which are dubious, when there are many.

As said before, there is a very complete set of bird-reptile fossils, such as the "Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba", as well as many others.
(http://www.talkorigins.org...)

Out of those, only the Archaeopteryx has been seriously scientifically contested. There are no morphological gaps between dinosaurs and birds.

We also have quite a complete set of reptile-mammal fossils, and these transitional fossils prove how the mammalian jaw and ears formed from reptile fossils. These transitional fossils document the step-by-step process of how the mammalian jaw and earbones formed through evolution, changing slightly step by step between the reptile jaw-and-earbone to the mammalian one over a long period of time. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

We also have a nearly gap free timeline for human evolution, as well as all of the transitional fossils. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

The statement that there are few and very dubious transitional fossils is simply untrue.

Claim 1: Nebraska Man

The Nebraska Man was never widely accepted as an ape-man by the scientific community due to the fact that there was only a decayed tooth. The drawing was never supposed to be scientific, but rather artistic in nature and was not accepted in the scientific community at that time.

"Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted." (Smith, 1922 emphasis added by talk.origins.)

(http://www.talkorigins.org...) The hominid fossils that are supported by scientists are much, much more complete. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

Claim 2: Evolutionist quote

Many, many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then.

Point 2: Macroevolution

I have provided evidence of new species forming from other species through evolution in the last round, but con requests evidence that a fruitfly can turn into an elephant, calling that macroevolution.

The problem is, a fruitfly turning into an elephant would be evidence against evolution, as evolution takes place though several generations, and a fruitfly suddenly turning into elephants would violate evolutionary theory.

Macroevolution, as defined by biologists, is just "new species forming through evolution". (http://www.talkorigins.org...) It is not "fruit flies giving birth to elephants". I have proven such speciation events do occur, and that there are enough transitional fossils to prove that the type of evolution con wanted to see did happen in the past.

THE MICROEVOLUTION POINT IS CONCEDED AS WE BOTH BELIEVE THAT MICROEVOLUTION IS TRUE.

Conclusion:

P1: If macro evolution happens, then evolution is possible.
P2. If we see transitional fossils documenting change in the fossil record leading up to the creatures today, then evolution is likely responsible for life on Earth today.
Fact 1: Several examples of speciation (not just fruit flies and flowers), which is how biologists define macroevolution, have been observed.
Fact 2: Evidence of macro evolution has been found in the fossil record, including proof of exactly how mammalian jaw bones evolved from reptile ones, a complete linage of reptile-bird fossils, and more.
Conclusion: Evolution is supported by scientific fact, therefore the Theory of Evolution belongs in the category of science, or at least has enough merit to be taught in science classrooms as a plausible explanation of the development of life over time.

Notes:
-I hope you don't mind me using your format. I did used your format because it makes the rebuttal easier to read.

I don't mind that at all, as a consistent format makes the debate more clear and easy to comprehend for those unfamiliar with the topic of the evolution controversy.

- Also bird were made be dinosaurs according to Genesis which goes against the evolutionary hypothesis that birds came from dinosaurs. Science has been wrong before but the bible hasn't. For example science use to teach the earth was flat even though Job 26:10 says the earth is round. Also science taught that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth"s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing"( Job 26:7). In short theistic evolution is not plausible unless you say that that Genesis was mistranslated.

Science follows the scientific method, which ensures that it corrects itself if an error is found. Also, Job 26:10, in the original King James Translation, says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." (https://www.biblegateway.com...) That does not seem to be about the horizon.

Also, the Bible may use hyperbole, metaphors, exaggerations, similes, and etcetera.

Debate Round No. 2
Nathan.apologetics

Con


Here is a response to my opponent' claims to a " very complete set of bird-reptile fossils".
Birds to Dinosaurs

According to many evolutionists today, dinosaurs are really not extinct but rather are feeding at our bird feeders even as we speak. For many evolutionists, it would seem, birds simply are dinosaurs. Evolutionists now agree that birds are related in some way to theropod dinosaurs (bipedal meat-eating dinosaurs). The view has gained in popularity since 1970, when John Ostrom discovered a rather “bird-like” early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur called Deinonychus.

One of the main reasons that Deinonychus and other similar theropod dinosaurs seemed to be plausible ancestors to birds is that, like birds, these creatures walked solely on their hind legs and have only three digits on their hands. But as we shall see, there are many problems with transforming any dinosaur, and particularly a theropod, into a bird.

Problems with Dinosaurs Evolving into Birds Warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded

Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. There are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that (with precious few exceptions) living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. Indeed, even compared to most mammals, birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.

The difference between cold- and warm-blooded animals isn’t simply in the relative temperature of the blood but rather in their ability to maintain a constant body core temperature. Thus, warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature; they are more properly called “endothermic.” In contrast, reptiles have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called “ectothermic.” An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature behaviorally (e.g., moving between shade and sun), even achieving higher body temperature than a so-called warm-blooded animal, but this is done by outside factors.

In an effort to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, some evolutionists have argued that dinosaurs were also endothermic,[1] but there is no clear evidence for this.[2]

One of the lines of evidence for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). Osteons are complex concentric layers of bone surrounding blood vessels in areas where the bone is dense. This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds, or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches.

Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.”[3] Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”

Avian vs. reptilian lung

One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight. Bird respiration involves a unique “flow-through ventilation” into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs sandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take part in oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs.

The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with the bidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. The air flow moves through the same tubes at different times both into and out of the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and this results in a mixture of oxygen-rich air with oxygen-depleted air (air that has been in the lungs for awhile). The unidirectional flow through bird lungs not only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly constant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path.

If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird.[4] Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird.

Origin of Feathers

Feathers have long been considered to be unique to birds. . Since most evolutionists are certain that birds evolved from dinosaurs (or at least are closely related to them), there has been an intense effort to find dinosaur fossils that show some suggestion of feathers or “protofeathers.” With such observer bias, one must be skeptical of recent widely publicized reports of feathered dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs are reptiles, and so it is not surprising that fossil evidence has shown them to have a scaly skin typical of reptiles. For example, a recently discovered well-preserved specimen of Compsognathus (a small theropod dinosaur of the type believed to be most closely related to birds) showed unmistakable evidence of scales but alas—no feathers.[5]

Still, there have been many claims of feathered dinosaurs, particularly from fossils found in Liaoning province in northeastern China.[6] The earliest feathered dinosaur from this source is the very unbird-like dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which lacks any evidence of structures that could be shown to be feather-like.[7]

Structures described as “protofeathers” in the dinosaur fossils Sinosauropteryx and Sinithosaurus are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers. It now appears likely that these filaments (often referred to as “dino-fuzz”) are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin. Feduccia laments that “the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.”[8]

Complicating matters even further is the fact that true birds have been found among the Liaoning province fossils in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors. The obvious bird fossil Confuciusornis sanctus, for example, has long slender tail feathers resembling those of a modern scissor-tail flycatcher. Two taxa (Caudipteryx andProtarchaeopteryx) that were thought to be dinosaurs with true feathers are now generally conceded to be flightless birds.[9]

Thus far, the only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was “found” is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. This so-called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud.

Conclusion

Having a true bird appear before alleged feathered dinosaurs, no mechanism to change scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds. Chicken eaters around the world can rest easy-they are not eating mutant dinosaurs!

Macroevolution

It was a poor choice of words to ask you to show me an example of a fly giving birth to a elephant. Macro evolution would be when one kind of animal evolved into a new kind which in most cases requires the addition of genetic information. There is no process of mutation that adds genetic information. To even think that genetic information can be added through any process is ludicrous!

Evolutionist Quote

If so many transitional fossils have been found name one watertight missing link.

Side Notes

-If evolution is backed by science find a source that isn't an athiest blog (www.talkorigins.org)

-Which evolved first the heart or the blood?

Sources
1.R.T. Bakker, Dinosaur renaissance, Scientific American 232:58–78, 1975.
2.A. Feduccia, Dinosaurs as reptiles, Evolution27:166–169,1973; A. Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, 2nd Ed., Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1999.
3.N.R. Geist and T.D. Jones, Juvenile skeletal structure and the reproduction habits of dinosaurs, Science272:712–714,1996.
4.A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence, Journal of Morphology266:125–166, 2005.
5.Feduccia et al., 2005.
6.J.A. Ruben, T.D. Jones, N.R. Geist, and W.J. Hillenius, Lung structure and ventilation in dinosaurs and early birds, Science278:1267–1270, 1997.
7.U.B. Gohlich and L.M. Chiappe, A new carnivorous dinosaur from the late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago, Nature440:329–332, 2006.
8.P.J. Chen, Z.M. Dong, and S.N. Zheng, An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China, Nature391:147–152,1998; X. Xu, X.Wang, and X. Wu, A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian formation of China, Nature401:262–266, 1999; P.J. Currie and P.J. Chen, Anatomy of Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, northeastern China, Can. J. Earth Sci. 38:1705–1727, 2001.
9.Feduccia et al., 2005.

jh1234lnew

Pro

Thanks to con for responding! :)

Claim 1. Warm blooded birds, cold blooded dinos

Many reptiles do have partial homeothermy: They do control their body heat, just not as strictly as birds and mammals and with allowed variation. (http://www.talkorigins.org...) This shows that homeothermy is not necessarily indicative of irreducible complexity.

Claim 2. Lungs

Alligators and other such reptiles also have unidirectional air flows and air sacs, meaning that con's claim is flawed. Modern day reptiles such as alligators do have unidirection air flow in their lungs. (http://svpow.com...) The diaphragm is a minor difference that may be caused by a mutation.

Claim 3. Feathers

Con claims that the alleged feathers are actually just collagen filaments. However, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, such as the Archaeopteryx. Creationists have said that the Achaeopteryx was fully bird as it had feathers and wings. Little did they know that this claim would backfire as there were many characteristics indicating that it was half dinosaur, proving that protofeathers did exist. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

Con's dropped arguments:

Con has failed to adequately respond to my points that:

1. There is a complete set of transitional fossils documenting how the mammalian jaw and earbone evolved from the reptillian jaw and earbone.

2. The nearly gap-free timeline for human evolution with complete fossils

3. The lack of any morphological gaps between dinosaurs and birds and the completeness of the entire strand of transitional fossils with very few missing links

4. The fact that evolutionists were skeptical of Nebraska man


Macroevolution


Macro evolution would be when one kind of animal evolved into a new kind which in most cases requires the addition of genetic information. There is no process of mutation that adds genetic information. To even think that genetic information can be added through any process is ludicrous!


Con states that macroevolution is evolution between "kinds", and states that evolution between "kinds" requires addition of genetic information, which is "impossible".

1. There is no scientific definition for a "kind". This seems similar to baraminology, which seeks to allow for speciation while keeping barriers between "kinds". However, baraminology puts arbitary borders between kinds witut any scientific evidence: the grouping of organisms into kinds is arbitary and relies on personal opinion by stating that while all animals which can interbreed are of the same kind, those which can't can also be of the same kind. This leaves a lot of room for arbitary classifications. (http://rationalwiki.org...)


2. There is a way for new genetic information to appear.

We have observed instances of:




1.increased genetic variety in a population

2.increased genetic material

3.novel genetic material

4.novel genetically-regulated abilities
(http://www.talkorigins.org...)

While all of the other instances of increased information look like a win for evolutionists, number 2 in the above list is just gene duplication. You might be saying "how is gene duplication new information?" Well, gene duplication duplicates a gene, then a mutation causes neofunctionalization: a mutation makes the duplicated gene have a function different from the original. This has been seen in ice fish, where gene duplication turned into a positive mutation due to neofunctionalization, meaning that the ice fish genome acquired new genetic information. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

1, 3, and 4 are self-explanatary: information created through mutations.

"If so many transitional fossils have been found name one watertight missing link. "

What is watertight? As stated above, I have given an entire timeline of human evolution without missing links, and how the mammal jaw evolved from the reptillian one step-by-step. The Archaeopteryx is a watertight missing link, as it has feathers and wings as creationists agree, but it also has several morphological features that show it is a dinosaur transitional fossil. ((http://www.talkorigins.org...))

Side note
I have shown 2 sources that are not talk.origins supporting evolution.

Debate Round No. 3
Nathan.apologetics

Con

Once again sorry it took me so long to respond. I did a lot of extensive research to make sure the information I am presenting is based on the most recent science.

Response to PartialHomoeothermic Reptiles

Your statement about reptiles having partial control over their body temperature is correct. It cannot be said that they are partially homoeothermic because according to http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... homoeothermy is ““the maintenance of a constant body temperature despite changes in the environmental temperature.”(emphasis added) Reptiles can partially control their body temperature by basking in the sun or by using other methods involving the external environment. A good example is a common lizard. They can bask in the sun to warm themselves up, but that doesn’t mean they will survive a blizzard in Minnesota like most birds and mammals can. The reason is because a homoeothermic animal stays warm through internal processes while reptiles simply don’t. Even if an example was discovered in the future, you would still have to explain how on earth an ectothermic animal miraculously switched its internal systems to become endothermic. On top of that you would have to be able to figure out how the species survived millions or years while using its valuable energies towards an incomplete heating system!

Response to Crocodiles Breathing Like Birds

I will post my response in the comments due to lack of room.

Response to the Archaeopteryx Claim

jh1234lnew claims that “many characteristics indicating that it was half dinosaur”. First off he was citing talkorigins.org which is a biased website. I can see that despite the blogs bias, it does present accurate information for its time. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page you will see it was last modified 9 years ago. A lot has been discovered since then.

One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird. [8] Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds when birds already exist doesn’t help the case for evolution.

For many years Archaeopteryx has been touted in biology textbooks and museums as the perfect transitional fossil, presumably being precisely intermediate between reptiles and birds. Much has been made over the fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth, fingers on its wings, and a long tail—all supposedly proving its reptilian ancestry. While there are no living birds with teeth, other fossilized birds such as Hesperornis also had teeth. Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin (a South American bird) has well-developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees.

Response to My So-called Dropped Arguments

I apologize for not responding to your arguments in the earlier round. I just didn’t have enough room, but now I do.

“There is a complete set of transitional fossils documenting how the mammalian jaw and ear bone evolved from the reptilian jaw and ear bone.”

I am more than willing to get in specifics of the argumen it if it is requested in the comments since getting into detail will take up too much space.

Mammal-like reptiles may indeed qualify as the very best examples of transitional evolutionary change that evolutionary theory has to offer from the fossil record. This only shows the barrenness and intellectual poverty of macroevolution. When all of the characters used for the conventional constructions of cladograms are considered, the majority of mammal-like reptile characters do not consistently progress towards the mammalian condition. Instead, within the ‘evolutionary’ chain of mammal-like reptiles, there are many ‘reversals’ away from mammalian characteristics.

The use of mammal-like reptiles as an argument for ‘transitional change’ (however one strictly defines it) rests upon special pleading (like everything else in evolutionary theory). So let us permit the evolutionist special pleading and pretend that the large numbers of reversing traits don’t exist, so that the argument can be based solely on the progressive characters. Even this does not let the evolutionist off the hook. To the contrary, the chain of mammal-like reptiles, when examined closely and with attention to many (instead of just a selected few) anatomical characters is full of major discontinuities. And very many of these discontinuities are as large, if not larger, than the ranges of characters which both precede and follow them. Therefore, the oft-repeated evolutionistic claim about mammal-like reptiles showing a series of intermediate stages to the mammalian condition is, at best, an exaggeration.

Could not the evolutionists argue that, as more fossils are discovered, the gaps will close? Perhaps. At least they have been trying to do so since the days of Darwin, but with little success, despite a vastly larger known fossil record. Remember that, as shown elsewhere, [9] new fossil finds can just as easily accentuate the gaps as reduce or close them. Consider three new genera that have been described in the 1980s and 1990s: Sinoconodon, Adelobasileus and Haldanodon. As noted earlier, not enough is preserved of Adelobasileus to include it in Tables 1–3. When it comes to Sinoconodon, its existence does narrow the gap in Table 3 that would otherwise exist without it, but not by much in comparison with the gap that remains afterward. Haldanodon, on the other hand, cuts the other way. By virtue of the fact that its characters fall within the range for previously-known primitive mammals, its very discovery actually reinforces the gap between cynodonts and mammals.

What if mammal-like reptiles never existed? Would evolutionary theory be crippled? Certainly not. Evolutionary theory is so plastic that any series of observations in the natural world could be cited in its favor!

Clearly, the ruling evolutionary paradigm existed before the discovery of mammal-like reptiles, and would have flourished had these reptiles never been discovered. In that event, today’s evolutionists would be extolling some extinct amphibian group as the transitions (or stratomorphic intermediates) leading up to mammals. Cladograms would be constructed to show the close branching pattern between that chosen group of amphibians and mammals.All else would fall in place according to the dictates of evolutionary dogma

“The nearly gap-free timeline for human evolution with complete fossils” and “The lack of any morphological gaps between dinosaurs and birds and the completeness of the entire strand of transitional fossils with very few missing links”
From what I have observed about you so far jh1234lnew, I am going to assume these statements were made out of ignorance. There are no transitional fossils from ape to man or from dinosaur to bird that are not extremely dubious. I dare you to show me one example of a transitional human/ape fossil that doesn’t fit one of these categories.

  • Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
  • Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
  • Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.

Also the only supposed transitional fossil from dinosaurs to birds is the Archaeopteryx. As I showed earlier the idea that the Archaeopteryx was half dinosaur is ridiculous. Any other so called transitional fossils are dinosaurs that ‘scientists’ assumed had proto feathers because they confused collagen fibers with these nonexistent proto feathers.

No scientist who is familiar with the fossil record truly thinks that there is a “gap free timeline” of any evolution unless there are a victim of cognitive dissonance.

(If you take on my dare I will respond in the comments because after this round I will not be able to reply to it because the 5th round is for a conclusion only.)

“The fact that evolutionists were skeptical of Nebraska man”

This is true they were skeptical of Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man would have been a better example.


Response to Added Genetic Information Claim

The example of the Antarctic Notothenioids is not a case of genetic information being added. It was difficult to get information on this research because it is fairly new and the scientific community hasn’t had the time to add on to this work nor have they had the time to properly state any criticism on the topic. Assuming that the article is 100% accurate, the hypothesis of evolution still can’t scientifically explain how all the genetic information that is needed to make a human was added over millions of years of evolution. Even if some genes can find new purposes that is not adding information. That is merely adjusting information that is already there. For example if you took an original word ‘macroevolution’ and rearranged it to ‘revolution camo’ you would have new meaning, but it wouldn’t become the complete works of Shakespeare over millions of years!

1, 3, and 4 are self-explanatory: information lost or rearranged through mutations.

Response to ‘Watertight’ Missing Links

will put in comments.

Side Notes

-You still haven’t told me which evolved first the heart to pump the blood, or the blood for the heart to pump.

Sources

will put in the comments

jh1234lnew

Pro

Note: This argument will be short due to technical difficulties and computer crashes

"If it currently or used to be able to reproduce it is the same kind. For example zebras and horses are the same kind because the can reproduce. So yes there is a good way to scientifically determine if two sorts of animals are of the same kind. Another good example are human races. We are all equally human (contrary to what evolution tells us), but there are different characteristics such as height,skin color,eye color...etc within the human kind. We are all of the same kind because despite minor differences between races, two humans can still reproduce offspring healthy offspring."

Except that the speciation examples I gave either could not breed with the original species, or could but produced sterile offspring, proving that these were between kinds as you define them. In fact, you used the normal definition of species to define kind, instead of using the regular creationist definition of a kind, proving that the examples of speciation I gave were between kinds as you defined them. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

Evolution does not state that about humans.

This proves that macroevolution has happened.

1. Breathing

American alligators have no air sacs. (http://www.sciencemag.org...)

2. The Archaeopteryx actually has a lot of dinosaur like features, according to a 2011 study. (http://www.nature.com...)

3. Con ignores the fact that it's not reptile-like mammals: An entire, complete timeline of how reptile jaws turned into mammalian jaws and earbones has been found and confirmed. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

What if mammal-like reptiles never existed? Would evolutionary theory be crippled? Certainly not. Evolutionary theory is so plastic that any series of observations in the natural world could be cited in its favor!

No. Instead, evolutionary theory changes to accomodate new observations all the time to make sure that it is accurate.

" Any other so called transitional fossils are dinosaurs that ‘scientists’ assumed had proto feathers because they confused collagen fibers with these nonexistent proto feathers."

Creationists have agreed that the archaeopteryx had feathers. Also, it was proven that the hairlines of the archaeopteryx was not a forgery. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu...)

"

The example of the Antarctic Notothenioids is not a case of genetic information being added. It was difficult to get information on this research because it is fairly new and the scientific community hasn’t had the time to add on to this work nor have they had the time to properly state any criticism on the topic. Assuming that the article is 100% accurate, the hypothesis of evolution still can’t scientifically explain how all the genetic information that is needed to make a human was added over millions of years of evolution. Even if some genes can find new purposes that is not adding information. That is merely adjusting information that is already there. For example if you took an original word ‘macroevolution’ and rearranged it to ‘revolution camo’ you would have new meaning, but it wouldn’t become the complete works of Shakespeare over millions of years!

1, 3, and 4 are self-explanatory: information lost or rearranged through mutations."

"Novel" does not mean lost information.

Proof that there are transitional fossils and not just fully ape or fully man fakes

1. The Australopithecus afarensis was almost ape, but was bipedal and had teeth that were human-like, but not completely human-like

2. The Australopithecus africanus had a slightly larger brain size than apes, but way smaller than humans

3. Homo habilis was just like the above, but with a larger brain size than the africanus but smaller than modern humans, the brain size was in the middle, proving that it ws not a mismatch or a full ape/man

4. A Homo sapiens fossil that looked like it was between the old fossils and modern ones was found

5. A fossil with the features of both modern man and neanderthals has been found (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

Debate Round No. 4
Nathan.apologetics

Con

Evolution:If Evolution Occurred (IEO)
-IEO: Some races of humans would be more closely related to our apelike ancestors than others.
Fact: A study was made in 2001 that showed all humans are equally human.
-IEO: All fossils will be in the vertical position in order. Primitive at the bottom and advanced on top.
Fact: rarely if ever in the right order. Tons of horizontal fossils(a good example is petrified trees in Nova Scotia I saw them myself by the hundreds)
-IEO: We would see genetic information being added every so often.
Fact: Never been observed or recorded
-IEO: The world would have to be at least a billion years old
Fact: If you calculate the rate the earths revolution decrease and calculate backwards you will discover that it is physically impossible for the earth to be even 50,000,000 year old.
-IEO:You would see thousands if not millions of transitional fossils.
Fact: There are only a handful of transitional fossils that have been found. Roughly 90% have been proven to be either fraudulent or inaccurately described. Examples Piltdown Man, Archaeopteryx,Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus, Homo habilis africanus, Nebraska Man...etc( I will explain why they are inaccurate in the comments)
IEO: You would see lots of vestigial organs
Fact: None have been found.
If Creation Occurred(ICO)
ICO: You would see design in living thing
Fact: If you study Genetics you will see lots of design
ICO: You will observe emotional responses that are not beneficial to your survival
Fact: Germans helping Jews during WW2 is a perfect example.
ICO: If a worldwide flood occurred you should see flood myths in most cultures regardless of which continent they exist on
Fact: Nearly every culture has some form of flood myth.
Conclusion:
Evolution is contrary to evidence and common sense.
jh1234lnew

Pro

Evolution:If Evolution Occurred (IEO)
-IEO: Some races of humans would be more closely related to our apelike ancestors than others.
Fact: Evolution does not state that: Evolution is not linear and humans are common ancestors. The differences in race are caused by adaptation to local environments (e.g. black skin is better near the equator to prevent damage from the sun, while fair skin is better in the arctics where vitamin D is hard to come by)
-IEO: All fossils will be in the vertical position in order. Primitive at the bottom and advanced on top.
Fact: This is true, except for certain examples where organisms can be too big to fit in a single layer. Because of this issue radiometric dating is used. Radiometric dating is accurate and the speed of decay of particles is mostly constant.[1]
-IEO: We would see genetic information being added every so often.
Fact: Has been observed and recorded. Novel information and gene duplication have been confirmed to increase genetic information.
-IEO: The world would have to be at least a billion years old, and the slowing down of the Earth's rotation proves that it isn't
Fact: The earth slows down by 0.005 seconds per year, meaning that 4.6 billion years ago the length of a day was 14 hours. That is not physically impossible, but rather extremely reasonable. [2]
-IEO:You would see thousands if not millions of transitional fossils.
Fact: There are many transitional fossils. Some are inaccurate, and those inaccurate ones were quickly discovered most of the time by scientists. Con ignores my evidence that the Archaeopteryx was not fully bird or dino.
IEO: You would see lots of vestigial organs
Fact: A lot have been found. Vestiges are not always completely useless, just remainants of something else.[3]
If Creation Occurred(ICO)
ICO: You would see design in living thing
Fact: Poor design has been found, consistent with evolution or at least guided evolution
ICO: You will observe emotional responses that are not beneficial to your survival
Fact: Strawman: evolution does not state that
ICO: If a worldwide flood occurred you should see flood myths in most cultures regardless of which continent they exist on
Fact: Cultures in Mesopotamia had flood myths, because the river valley frequently floods.
Conclusion:
Evolution is supported by evidence and common sense.

[1]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
Your right I forgot to properly respond to the statement "We have observed instances of...novel genetic material ...novel genetically-regulated abilities". I would appreciate evidence for this absurd claim. Evolutionists have being looking desperately for proof of this 'novel' genetic material being added by natural processes for decades and have failed miserably. I have already disproved the one example you gave with the ice fish. I don't want an example of genetic information being rearranged, I want an example of genetic information being literally added to the genome.
Posted by jh1234lnew 2 years ago
jh1234lnew
Appearantly nathan.apologetics ignored the fact that I said that "novel" means new information in response to his point.
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
benko12345678 you are correct if you keep adding bricks you will get a house. If addition of genetic information occurs in nature then evolution would be possible. The fact is that the addition of genetic information has never been observed. There isn't even a good theory about how information could be added to the genome! Also what arguments did I use that were ridiculous? I would love to hear your criticism!
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
I would like to congratulate jh1234lnew for a job well done. If anyone has any questions involving the points I brought up in the debate just ask in the comments and I will reply as soon as possible.

Ps to MykSkodar: Creationsits discovered calculus,pasteurization,germ theory,confirmed a heliocentric solar system,thermodynamics,cells...etc and invented Gatorade,light bulbs,MRI Scanner,phonograph,movies,microphones,telephones..etc so I find it VERY offensive to say that "creationists don't invent anything". Nothing could be further from the truth. I am going to assume MykSkodar's comment was spoken out of ignorance and wasn't said to purposely deceive people.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
Just to clarify, something that many proponents of the theory of evolution believe and is not true (for a change!), micro- and macro-evolution are in fact terms that have been used by evolutionary biologists (e.g. In E.O. Wilson's 'the Diversity of Life'), it's just that Creationists totally abuse these terms.

This is true in the same way that Charles Darwin himself came up with irreducible complexity as an example of the falsifiability of his theory (although he didn't call it thus, it's quite clearly laid out in the chapter 'Difficulties with the theory').

Creationists don't invent anything. What's more, their arguments are often lifted from passages of Darwin's book, even though it's +150 years old.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Talkorigins usually cites many peer reviewed journals to support it's statements, it looks much better if you source those instead of talk origins.
Posted by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
ChristianPunk
I will gladly point out talkorigins is a realiable source.
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
If anyone wants me to respond to Pro's conclusion I would be more than happy to. Just make a request in the comments and I will try to give a proper rebuttal as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation in this debate. I would also like to thank jh1234lnew for taking the time to debate me. If anyone else wants to debate me on this topic just send me a challenge and I will make sure to accept it as soon as possible.
Sincerely Yours,
Nathan.apologetics : )
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
Pro said " A Homo sapiens fossil that looked like it was between the old fossils and modern ones was found"and that "A fossil with the features of both modern man and neanderthals has been found". Both statements are very inconclusive. Human skull structure can vary based on how the human lived. A good example is the aborigines in Australia. They use their jaws as a tool on a daily basis so their jaws are slightly larger than the average person. This was quite unfortunate for the aborigines because the British found their larger jaws as proof that they were living missing links between apes and human. The British in the 1870's killed hundreds of aborigines so their skulls could be used as evolution displays in museums. A well kept secret is that Smithsonian purchased some of these skulls for their evolution displays! Smithsonian might still have these skulls in their inventory. Also neanderthals were fully human. If a neanderthal walked into a restaurant no one would notice. The only difference between modern human skeletons and neanderthal skeletons is that neanderthals have a slightly larger cranial capacity and that their bones were larger than most humans. I can guarantee that if you look hard enough you will find someone who has thick bones and a large head. That would not make him/her a missing link! So in conclusion all of pro's missing links between apes and homo sapiens are either based on misconceptions or are not a missing link at all.
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as Human part 3

Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:

Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes.

Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." This meant that the H. habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species. Thus they concluded that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."

This finding yielded two important results:

1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e. humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e. apes.

2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped forward-that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever to man.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Nathan.apologeticsjh1234lnewTied
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: Con was using ridiculous arguments that make no sense. He doesn't even seem to understand what evolution is. There is no 'Micro' or 'Macro' evolution. It's just a term apologetics made up. It's all the process of evolution. If you place a brick and keep on stacking, eventually, there's a house. If you keep changing a dog, eventually, there's a...schmog...i guess.
Vote Placed by ally.jimmy 2 years ago
ally.jimmy
Nathan.apologeticsjh1234lnewTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: My votes for con. He gave a compelling argument and cited reliable sources. Pro just copied his arguments off talkorigins.org
Vote Placed by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
ChristianPunk
Nathan.apologeticsjh1234lnewTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins especially for conduct by not using unfunny satire photos like Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Nathan.apologeticsjh1234lnewTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con win with loads of doubt provided in pro's arguments, with the lack of transitional fossils, the hardly observed change, and finally the questioning of the earth's real age. I believed pro failed to fulfill his BoP with con's rebuttals and efficient questioning of his evidence.