Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is a sound theory of how life developed on Earth.

First of all, I would like to thank Virtuoso for challenging me to this debate. I expect this will be quite interesting. In similar fashion, I will start my debate by debunking several misconceptions about evolution:

“Micro-Evolution”:
Speciation: Creationists never disputed that organisms change; however, Darwinian evolution claims that all living creatures developed from a common single celled ancestor. The critical question we must ask when examining examples of bio-diversification is: Do these changes make the organism more complex as required for Darwinian evolution, or are they deleterious? Contrary to Pro’s attempts to paint this distinction as ambiguous, this distinction is black and white. Either mutations produce a net increase in information over time and Darwinian evolution is true or mutations produce a net decrease in information over time and Darwinian evolution is false.

• What Speciation Is and is Not:Pro falsely equates speciation to evolution. Speciation simply refers to which genetic traits are passed on or not passed on to the next generation. Dog breeders use speciation to narrow the gene pool in dog populations. Mutts generally possesses a much richer variety of genetic characteristics than their purebred counterparts and, therefore, can produce offspring with widely varied characteristics. Dog breeders use inbreeding and artificial selection to remove undesired genetic characteristics from a population. This produces breeds which can only produce certain characteristics (like floppy ears or stubby snouts for example) because these are the only genetic characteristics that breed possesses. If this had occurred in nature, it is likely we would consider Chihuahuas a different species from Great Danes (see picture here); however, these two ‘species’ clearly diversified through loss of genetic characteristics rather than the Darwinian claimed development of new information. This process is referred to as speciation; because, (through the process of removing different genetic characteristics in a given population) different populations of the same kind can express enough genetic separation to merit subcategorizing into species. Darwinian evolution requires that information be added over time; therefore, the scientifically proven process of speciation is the opposite of Darwinian evolution.
  

Key Question for Pro:Darwin contrived his theory around a faulty understanding of his observation of the speciation of finches; therefore, it would be most reasonable to say speciation was used to predict Darwinian evolution. How then, can Pro claim that Darwinian evolution was used to predict speciation?
Genetics:
Making an Ape Out of Man:

• Mitochondrial Eve:The theory that mankind originated from a mitochondrial Eve about 200,000 years ago originates from research done in 1988 [1] and was calculated using faulty mutation rates which have since been proven to be completely wrong. As evolutionist Ann Gibbons stated in 1998, “Mitochondiral DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensic procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events…. Researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve” … lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago... Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old” [2]. Alex Williams concurs with this conclusion saying, “We are unable to reproduce ourselves without making multiple genome copying errors every generation. As a result our genomes are decaying towards extinction from copy errors alone…. When decay in copy fidelity is projected backwards in time it reaches perfection around 4,000 BC, and when projected forwards, extinction from copy errors alone occurs in thousands, not millions, of years” [3]. Clearly mitochondrial DNA provided strong evidence against Darwinian evolution.
  
• Ape-Man Differences:I cited two high quality peer reviewed journals in my opening statement which both put the human-chimp DNA similarities at 70%, a far cry from Pro’s claimed 95-99%. Pro’s sources studied a mere 2% of the genome whereas the ENCODE project encompassed analysis of 100% of the human genome. This project included “more than 30 research groups and more than 400 scientists” [4]. Clearly the alleged 95-99% similarity is simply an exercise in lying with statistics.
  
• The Time Problem:I called Pro’s bluff on the supposed ability of chimp-human evolution to occur within 6 million years (or 8 million if Pro likes). As stated above, evolutionary time frames dictate that about 1,000 mutations must be fixed per generation to accomplish ape-man evolution. Realistically the mutation fixation rate is 1 mutation per 300 generations (this was verified by three independent studies cited above). At this rate, ape-man evolution would take nearly one-trillion years a far cry from Pro’s supposed 7-8 million years.
  
• ERV’s – Another Evolutionary Prediction Bites the Dust:Science is now catching up with the ill founded assumption that 8% of the genome is the result of endogenous retroviruses inserting sequences of DNA into the genetic code. Shaun Doyle accounts how, “The term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim…. Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labeled as ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence” [5]. Once again, Darwinian evolution manifests its inability to produce accurate predictions.
  

HIV – SIV:

• Virus Recombination:It is important to note that viruses have the ability to exchange genetic code. William Fleischmann explains that, “Recombination involves the exchange of genetic material between two related viruses during coinfection of a host cell.”[6]. Rather than creating information, this process simply allows a virus to borrow existing information from another organism.
  
• Evolution or Devolution?:Dr Carl Wieland examined the mutations leading to the rise of HIV and concluded that the net effect of these mutations lead to, “only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity” [7].
  

Key Question for Pro:The evidence supports that HIV is simpler than the sum of its original genetic parts. Can you provide evidence that the mutations affecting HIV actually added complexity as required for Darwinian evolution to be tenable?

• Antibiotic Resistance at What Cost?:HIV expert Veronica Miller PhD experimented with the effect antibiotic resistance has on the fitness of HIV, “by ceasing all antiviral drug treatments to a patient. Without the drug, the few surviving original (‘wild’) types [of HIV] that had infected the patient could grow more easily. It turned out that they easily out-competed the vast numbers of resistant forms…. the wild types were also more dangerous—more efficient than the new strains.” [8]. The mutant antibiotic resistant strains of HIV are far inferior to the original wild strains demonstrating that these mutations are highly detrimental to the general health and fitness of the virus. Rather than supporting evolving to a higher state, these mutations represent genetic decay.
  

• A Very Poor Choice of Examples:Darwinism dictates that, our ultimate common ancestor, the very first single celled organism, be self-sufficient. Being the first and only living thing, this cell can’t rely on byproducts of any other organisms to assist in its survival. Alex Williams notes that, “First life… must be able to sustain itself indefinitely – and only the ‘high-tech’ autotrophs can do that!” [10]. Molecular geneticist Otto Yang defined viruses as simply, “packaged RNA or DNA”. Viruses are inert unless they come into contact with a living cell therefore they do not take self-generating or self-sustaining actions [11], and are generally not even considered to be alive. Under Darwinian presuppositions, viruses would be a highly degenerate relative of the first single celled life form. This brings us to a crucial question:
  

Key Question for Pro:Considering that, under Darwinian presuppositions, viruses are degenerate descendents of the first complex single cell, how are viruses supposed to demonstrate that organisms build complexity and become fish, mammals, and humans over time? Clearly the degenerate virus is one of the worst possible examples an evolutionist could possibly use to argue that organisms can develop complexity.
Fossil Record:

• The Cambrian Explosion:Darwinian evolution holds that one type of life diversified over time giving rise to many life forms; however, the fossil record does not concur with Darwin in the slightest on this point. As Dr John Morris and Frank Sherwin account, “The Cambrian portion of the fossil record has preserved multitudes of invertebrate types that all appeared at the same time, each quite complex and quite different from the others. An honest look at when and where fossil types are found suggests that life began with a multitude of early life plans, not with a single plan that later branched out.” Dr Morris also notes that, “Cambrian trilobites abound, with eyes at least as proficient as those possessed by any animal living today.” [12]. Indeed, the fossil record preserves complex and unique organisms from the very beginning.
  
• Living Fossils:There are numerous examples of species considered to have gone extinct millions of years ago later found to still be alive today. Randy Guliuzza gives a classic example saying, “National Geographic recalls how ‘the primitive-looking coelacanth…was thought to have gone extinct with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But its discovery in 1938 by a South African museum curator on a local fishing trawler fascinated the world.’” [13]. Dr. Carl Werner filled an entire book with examples of living fossils and found that, “Examples of all the major groups of plants living today have been found in dinosaur layers, including flowering plants and trees (angiosperms), plants without fruits or flowers (conifers, cycads, and ginkgos); vascular spore-forming plants (ferns, horsetails, and club mosses), and simple moss (peat moss)” [14].
  

Archaeopteryx: Evolutionist Ernst Mayr explains how, “The earliest undisputed bird fossil is Archaeopteryx, found in the upper Jurassic (145 million years ago). There are two major proposals concerning the phylogeny of birds. According to the thecodont theory, birds originated from archosaurian reptiles more than 200 million years ago [i.e., birds evolved before Archaeopteryx]. According to the dinosaur theory, birds originated from theropod dinosaurs in the later Cretaceous (ca. 80-100 million years ago) [i.e., the origin of birds came long after Archaeopteryx]” [15]. Archaeopteryx is either insignificant, since birds had already fully evolved about 50 million years prior to archaeopteryx, or a massive problem, since archaeopteryx predates its earlier ancestors by about 50 million years. Evolutionists now consider Archaeopteryx to be a true bird [16]; therefore Pro’s claim that Archaeopteryx is a ‘missing link’ is a position no longer supported even by authorities on evolution.
150 Years of Science Overturns Evolution:Evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin said, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world [i.e., Darwinian evolution], but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated” [17]. Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr said, “All of the atheists I know are highly religious; it just doesn’t mean believing in the Bible or God. Religion is the basic belief system of the person” [18].  Clearly Pro is falsely masquerading Darwinian evolution as science. These evolutionists understand what Pro seems to be missing; which is that, evolution is a 150 year old worldview that has never been proven by science.
Part 2: A series of irrelevant claims:The scientific viability of evolution is on trial here. I have no burden of proof to present or defend an alternative to evolution. The issues Pro brings up here do not scientifically vindicate Darwin’s theory.

1. https://i.b5z.net/i/u/736324/i/IN_SEARCH_FOR_ADAM___EVE.pdf
   
2. http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf
   
3. Williams, Alex, “Human genome decay and the origin of life”The In-depth Journal of Creation 28:1 (2014): p91.
   
4. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/encode
   
5. Doyle, Shaun, “Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’” The In-depth Journal of Creation 22:3 (2018) p 16.
   
6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8439/
   
7. Wieland, Carl. Has AIDS evolved? Creation 12:3 (1990) p29-32.
   
8. Safrati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2. Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, Georgia, 2011 P38.
   
9. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/black-death-greatest-catastrophe-ever
   
10. Williams, Alex, “What life isn’t”The In-depth Journal of Creation 29:1 (2015): 112.
    
11. https://www.livescience.com/58018-are-viruses-alive.html
    
12. Morris, John, Frank Sherwin. The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life. Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, 2010. P44
    
13. Guliuzza, Randy. Twenty Evolutionary Blunders: Danger and Difficulties of Darwinian Thinking. Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas, 2017 P94.
    
14. Werner, Carl. Lifing Fossils: Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol. 2. New Leaf Press, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2009. p230.
    
15. Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York, Basic Books, (2001). p 65.
    
16. P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indian University Press, Bloomington, Indiana 2004.
    
17. Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
    
18. https://www.the-scientist.com/feature/ernst-mayr-darwins-disciple-50738
    

Since, regrettably Virtuoso was unable to complete his post last round, I will use the open mike to address a couple of issues Pro brought up of indirect relevance.
A Brash Claim: Dobzansky very foolishly made the absolute claim that “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” I think it is fair to say that I have already proven Dobzansky to be spectacularly wrong, but, for good measure, here is another compelling example of how false Dobzansky’s claim is:

• Soft Tissue: In 2005 Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone traditionally dated to be 65 million years old. Mary Schweitzer et al said, “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” [1]. Observable science demonstrates that soft tissue lasts perhaps thousands of years not millions. Kevin Anderson PhD explained that, “Matthew Collins, directs a lab that specializes in analysis of archaeological samples. His lab experimentally determined how quickly proteins, such as collagen, will degrade even under ideal conditions. From this data, the letter concludes that the warmer climate of the Hell Creek Formation (where the T. rex was found) would accelerate collagen degradation, resulting in only 1% remaining after less than 15,000 years” [2]. According to Mary Schweitzer, “The present state of knowledge holds that microbial attack, enzymatic degradation, cellular necrosis and other processes contribute to total degradation of recognizable materials in days to years” [3]. Clearly the biology here does not make sense in light of the claims of Darwinian evolution.
  

There are many things in biology that do not make sense in light of evolution. The implications evolution has on the actual practice of science are small to nil. Evolutionist Conrad Johnson PhD noted that research scientists, “rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere” [4]. Evolution is also widely questioned by scientists. For example, over five hundred scientists signed a statement saying, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” [5]. Contrary to Pro’s claims, the scientific tenability of Darwinism is widely questioned by scientists.

Star Formation and the Age of the Universe: The resolution is, “The Theory of Evolution is a sound theory of how life developed on Earth.” This debate is clearly not about the universe; therefore, only that which pertains to planet earth can possibly have relevance to this debate.
 
Pro’s Oversold Confidence in Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth:An old earth does not establish Darwinian evolution as scientifically feasible. However, since a young earth would render Darwinian evolution impossible let’s explore radiometric dating:
1) Carbon Dating: It is quite interesting that Pro should bring up the topic of carbon dating the Quran since Radiocarbon dating supports a young age for the earth. Radiocarbon has a relatively short half life, and all specimens dating older than 100,000 years should not contain any detectable amounts of radiocarbon [6]. And yet, we actually find radiocarbon in abundance in numerous places. Here are a couple examples:

• Coal: Coal is traditionally dated to be around 360 to 250 million years old. John R. Baumgardner, PhD tested ten different coal samples collected from a variety of coal fields and found significant amounts of carbon 14 in all ten samples [7].
  
• Wood:Andrew Snelling PhD found significant amounts of radiocarbon in wood dated to be 47.5 million years old [8].
  
• Diamonds: Natural diamonds are believed by evolutionists to be billions of years old. John Baumgardner, PhD, part of the RATE research group, tested six diamond samples from South Africa, Botswana, and Guinea and found significant amounts of carbon 14 present in all six diamonds [9]. These are just a few examples.
  
• Dinosaurs: Hugh Miller et al. tested 24 samples from 10 dinosaurs and found significant amounts of carbon 14 in all 24 samples [10]. All 24 samples dated less than 40,000 years old.
  

2) Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) Dating:K-Ar dating is considered to be among the most reliable dating methods available. Andrew Snelling PhD gives several examples of how ‘accurate’ K-Ar dating has proven to be [11]:

• Mt. Etna Basalt, Sicily:two rock formations were tested here. The first formation is known to have formed around 122 B.C. but yielded an age of 170,000-330,000 years. The second was formed in 1972 but was dated at 210,000-490,000 years. Not only were the results astronomically erroneous, but the younger rock dated the oldest. Therefore, K-Ar dating even failed to date these two deposits in the correct relative order.
  
• Mt. St. Helens, Washington:Rock formations formed in 1986 yielded a date of 2.8 million years.
  
• Hualalai basalt, Hawaii:Rock formations from 1800-1801 were tested at 1.32-1.76 million years.
  
• Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand:Rocks formed in 1954 tested at up to 3.5 million years.
  
• Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii:Formations formed in 1959 tested at 1.7-15.3 million years.
  

These five independent examples clearly demonstrate that Potassium-argon dating fails to provide reliable results in rocks where the age is known. It is insanity to religiously trust dating methods that fail to accurately date rocks of known age.
3) Radiometric Dating Crosscheck:The RATE project rated a number of samples using potassium-argon (K-Ar), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), and lead-lead (Pb-Pb) dating methods from two independent sites. All four of these methods are considered highly reliable; therefore, all four methods should yield the same age. Samples from the first site ranged from 1.5 million years for K-Ar to 2.9 million years for Sm-Nd. Samples from the second site ranged from 665 million years for K-Ar to 1.4 million years for Pb-Pb [12]. The most so called ‘reliable’ radiometric dating methods don’t even agree with each other. In each case, the oldest dating method results were approximately twice the age of the youngest.
4) Helium Leakage Rates: Radiometric dating methods assume that historic radiometric decay rates have always been the same; however, this claim is unsubstantiated and even scientifically falsified. The radiometric decay of uranium and thorium produces lots of helium. Helium is a noble gas (meaning it does not combine with other atoms); therefore, helium is left to diffuse out of the rock. The Precambrian layer contains zirconium silicate crystals which contain both uranium and large amounts of helium [13]. As Dr Andrew Snelling et al succinctly stated, “The helium leakage rate has been determined in several experiments [14, 15, 16]. All measurements are in agreement. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium in these zircon crystals should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. The fact that so much helium is still there means they cannot be 1.5 billion year old, as uranium-lead dating suggests” [17]. The only logical conclusion is that radiometric decay rates were much faster sometime in the not-so-far past.
Radiometric Dating Concluded:Pro claimed that “we can test the accuracy of radiometric dating by cross-dating it with various isotopes.” Clearly, radiometric dating fails Pro’s litmus test. Evolutionary scientist William D. Stanfield PhD recognized that, “It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years)…. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists” [18].
 
Lifespan of Humans: Once again, Pro’s claim here has no relevance to the debate.
Conclusion: If the earth is young then Darwinian evolution simply could not have happened, but, an old earth does not solve Pro’s problems. Pro claims that the earth is 4.6 billion years old  and yet according to Haldane’s dilemma, it would take nearly 1 trillion years [19] just for ape and human evolution, and this assumes a steady supply of beneficial mutations, which as I have demonstrated is not even a remotely realistic assumption. That means Pro’s 4.6 billion year old date is far too short to give Darwinian evolution a chance. After considering that genetics overwhelmingly supports that the genome is in a perpetual state of decay, the earth could be infinitely old and Darwinian evolution would not have a chance.

1. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5717/1952
   
2. Anderson, Kevin. Echoes of the Jurassic: Discoveries of Dinosaur Soft-Tissue. CRS Books, (2017) p8. https://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/buckley.pdf
   
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6651395_Soft_tissue_and_cellular_preservation_in_vetebrate_skeletal_elements_from_the_Cretaceous_to_the_present
   
4. https://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.php
   
5. https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
   
6. Bergman, John. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth. Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, 2005 p587-630
   
7. Bergman, John. Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth. Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, 2005 p587-630
   
8. Snelling Andrew, “Conflicting ‘ages’ of Territorial basalt and contained fossilized wood, crinum, Central Queensland, Australia” The In-depth Journal of Creation 14:2 (2000): p99-122.
   
9. Baumgardner, J., 14C evidence for a recent global flood and a young earth; in ref. 6, ch. 8. 5th International Conference on Creationism, 2003.
   
10. https://researchopenworld.com/the-search-for-solutions-to-mysterious-anomalies-in-the-geologic-column/
    
11. Andrew Snelling, “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks,” Impact, 1999.
    
12. S.A. Austin, Do radioisotope clocks need repair? Testing the assumptions of isochron dating using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopes, in Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, P 325–392, 2005.
    
13. R.V. Gentry, G.L Glish, and E.H. McBay, “Differential Helium Retention in Zirons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Geophysical Research Letter 9, no. 10 (1982: p. 1129-1130.
    
14. S.W. Reiners, K.A. Farley, and H.J. Hicks, “He Diffusion and (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry of Zircon: Initial Results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Nevada,” Tectonophysics 349, no. 1-4 (2002): p. 297-308;
    
15. D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in proceeding of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R.L. Ivey Jr., ed. (Pittsburg, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), p. 175-196;
    
16. D. Russell Humphreys, “Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, eds. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), p. 25-100.
    
17. Snelling, Andrew et al. “What Are Some of the Best Evidences in Science for a Young Creation” The New Answers Book 4 (2015): p. 123.
    
18. William D. Stanfield, PhD., The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, P 82-84, 1977.
    
19. calculation based on 6,000 years (the number of years it takes for 1 mutation to fix in a population - see source 11 and 15) multiplied by 153.5 million (the number of base pair differences between apes and humans divided by two (since both theoretical species can evolve simultaneously) - see source 2 and 11 in my opening argument
    

I’d like to make a public apology to my opponent for my forfeitures. Things haven’t been going well for me recently and could not finish this debate. Please vote con. 

I hope things start going better for you Virtuoso. I believe that wraps this one up.