args

Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven

First, let me thank my worthy opponent for accepting the debate. Let me begin by saying I will not be able to stipulate that evolution is true since the underlying premise of the debate is that I do not believe that the evidence supports the theory. I directed the debate toward two things it has not conclusively shown-evidence and analysis. According to the theory,beneficial mutations acted upon natural selection to create new creatures such as the bat from the squirrel. Most mutations are harmful but supposedly a good mutation slips into the gene pool and these new mutations created new animals. If this is true and we could speed up the evolutinary process, we should be able to show it in the lab. Enter the fruit fly. It is perfect for studybecause it goes from egg to adult in about 10 days. Since the early 1900's, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred and studied in labs for different mutations. So far wide have been the studies, that it is the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. The scientists have found they could only produce small changes and then sterility sets in because mutaions are harmful and have limits. What do see after all the experiments done on them?? We still see fruit flies! That is all the best minds of research see. One researcher named Richard Goldschmidt reacted this way, "After observing fruit flies for many years, he fell into despair-the changes he said"were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined into one specimen, there would still be no new species"(1) My next point is analyzing the fossil records. Fossil records should on the whole support the claim that today's complex organisms evolved step by tiny step based on mutations and natural selection. It is generally conceded that the fossil evidence is stable over long periods of time. This is called "stasis" in the field of evolution. Then new forms appear already developed without the eviedence of preceding transitional forms. Even Darwin himself knew the record did not support his theory and the record has actually become worse since his day. In fact it was not religous people who opposed it at first but palentologis since they knew the fossil record did not support it. They analyised it and found it wanting. The extreme rarity of transitional forms has been dexcribed as the "great trade secret of palentology")2)In addition, extinctions are typically due to catastrophies such as comets not imaginary evolutionary forces that kill out weaker species and bring forth their stronger more able cousins. This "flies" in the face of evolutionay theories. Evolution has many holes in it and the evidence is lacking in how species develop. If it is a science, it should stand up to testing, which I think it has not. I turn the time over to my opponent. 1. Darwin Retired by Norman Macbeth 1971 p.33 2.Darwin on trial pp59-60 wikipeadia-fruit flies www.talkorigons.org