Evolution

IntroductionI would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and I would like to wish him luck in trying to discredit a scientific theory (more akin to a law in reality) that is supported by modern biology, genetics, embryology, genetics, and--to a lesser extent--even psychology. As I see it, at question is two facets of the debate surrounding evolution--to what extent is evolution a valid scientific theory, and to what extent does creationism better explain biodiversity. I'd like to wish my opponent luck in upholding the latter.DefinitionsA. Evolutionchange in the gene pool of a population from generation togeneration by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.B. Creationismthe belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation."Bacteria -- Eek!I would begin by directing my opponent's attention toward bacteria. Given the nature of evolution's tenets, it is best observed in species with very short generational cycles. In this regard, bacteria are the perfect example. Bacteria can reproduce and span an entire generation in only a few short weeks. One can see evolution in process when examining the issue of anti-biotic resistance. When one takes an antibiotic, the drug destroys the deadly bacteria in the human body, but not all of the bacteria get removed. The remaining bacteria, already been contaminated by the antibiotic, become resistant to the drug in a short amount of time. This is due to the fact that those bacteria that are anti-biotic resistant get to proliferate their genes, while the other die off. Eventually, the entire colony is immune. Thus, we see a change in the gene pool of a population from generation togeneration. This is why a doctor will warn you against self-prescribing antibiotics and researchers are constantly trying to develop more potent antibiotics. While the scenario I described is not technically natural selection, it goes a long way in demonstrating how environmental factors can make certain genetic attributes more useful and how environmental factors can facilitate the proliferation of these genetic attributes.Processes such as the one I have described are taking place constantly in the natural world. Given millions of years, these small genetic changes accumulate into large and noticeable changes (i.e. speciation).A Quick Note on CreationismAs my opponent has yet to offer an argument supporting the validity of creationism, I'll add quickly this short anecdote. Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. Moreover, DNA code is universal among all living things, with all living species sharing some identical segments of code. If the the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation," then this creator--who is responsible for all the majesty of the cosmos--got lazy when it came to designing life on earth and worked from the same basic template each time. Which scenario seems more likely? That the genetic similarities between earth's species are the result of their shared common ancestry, or that the grand designer of the universe got lazy when it came to designing life on earth?Sources:Bacteria: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...Genetic Similarities: http://genome.cshlp.org...;