Evolution is a strongly supported fact of science.

Most of my opponents sources are from religious websites. I have a good reason to believe that he did not thoroughly check my mine and gain a better understanding of Evolution or he would not have made these claims I am about to refute. This time I will make it very easy for him to do so by mostly quoting Talkorigins.org, which in turn only cites peer reviewed science, contained in a single website. "At the core of evolutionary theory is the big assumption that life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process -- POOF -- life created itself! This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity.” Chance is a small part of how life arose, and it did not entail a “mysterious, unknown electrochemical process.” It involved physics and chemistry. Abiogenisis does not break the second Law of Thermodynamics. Our universe may be a closed system, but our planet is not. It receives energy from the sun. I would recommend providing better sources, and gaining a better understanding of scientific terminology, if you plan on discrediting one of the foundational concepts of biology. [1] How was the first cell created? The first cell (arbitrarily defined) would have resulted from self-replicating molecules eventually evolving a shielding lipid membrane, and certainly would not have appeared as complex as modern cells do. [2] Most scientists accept the RNA world theory, as RNA acts as a crude self replicator and crude enzyme, sufficient enough for natural selection to work upon. [3] It is a straw man fallacy, and bad science, to point to the complexity of modern cells and assert that they must have been the first life forms. Your question is more indicting of how you do not understand what Abiogenesis would predict according to the laws of Chemistry and Physics. [4] For a light-hearted introduction, I recommend watching this Youtube Video: http://www.youtube.com... Abiogenesis was not to be discussed; it is an entirely different process than Biological Evolution, and the transition between Abiogenesis and Natural Selection is arbitrary. Let us assume your claim to be true: that a complex, modern cell MUST have somehow popped into existence by the works of an invisible and unspecific intelligent force. This still does not discredit Evolution. [5] How can evolutionists explain the complexity of the genetic code? You are correct. Evolutionists will tell us that the complexity of the genetic code is too great to have come out of nothing, as you say. It came out of slow and cumulative copying, rearranging and selection for over 4 billion years. I provided quality sources for this in my previous post. If you have a better alternative, you are free to present your evidence using credible sources. How did different sexes originate? The Evolution of sex is likely very primordial, originating perhaps 1.2 bya. [6] Natural Selection would have favored it by repairing DNA [7] and inhibiting excess variation. [8] It is not irreducibly complex. [9] Where is the evolutionary tree for insects? Though I doubt the credibility of your source, lets assume there are no transitional fossils for insects. Is it logical to infer that this pokes a “huge hole” in Evolution, rather than assuming we just haven’t found the transitions yet? Likewise, even if a transition WAS found, a creationist could easily claim otherwise by simply saying it was perfectly suited for its way of life using smaller proto-wings and had no relation the ancestors/descendants it was compared to. This is a god of the gaps argument. If you are interested in learning how wings evolve, check my source. [10] What did humans get first, the heart, the blood vessels or the blood? The heart organ, blood vessels and blood all evolved long before humans were ever around, as Evolutionary Theory predicts. If you are interested in how the heart organ and vessels [11] evolved, I would suggest reading scientific literature on it. Merely asking a hard question and not getting a response does not mean that any suppositions you might have in it’s place are automatically valid. A good start would be examining any “lesser" structures that we currently observe today and see if we can infer any similarities between it and what could have been ancestral. [12] Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA? RNA is made up of nucleotide bases, which could have evolved into DNA. [13] If you watched the Youtube Video, it is easy to see how strands of nucleotides could eventually give rise to RNA, a more efficient copier. Nucleotides, as the building blocks of DNA, spontaneously assemble from organic molecules spread throughout the cosmos by exploding stars. [14] [15] I would read Carl Sagan’s The Varieties of Scientific Experience for an enlightening treatise on this fact. Can evolution explain the complexity of the giraffe? The source you provided is written by a dentist and a theologian. I used to read his books. The length of Giraffe necks does not disprove Evolution, [16] and it looks as though you are not addressing my previous example as to why an intelligent force would create an unnecessarily long 17 foot laryngeal nerve that is susceptible to damage? Why can we find DNA on fossils that are supposedly billions of years old? We do not find DNA on fossils that are billions of years old. According to recent news, the oldest DNA ever recovered is Mitochondrial DNA, dated at 400,000 years old. [17] I am well aware of Creation.com, I used to read their propaganda. They are well known to distort things. If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards? This has nothing to do with biological Evolution. If you are interested in why planets spin in different directions (They do not spin “backwards”), I would recommend taking a course in astrophysics. Why does Second Law of Thermodynamics say that things become less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state over time?I have already dealt with this claim. Refer to my source above. Next, I will be going over the lack of evidence supporting evolution… Way back in the evolutionary tree, there is something called the Cambrian Explosion. In this time, there was rapid diversification, wand it was a relatively short period. Before this period, there was organisms with small amounts of cells, or fairly simple organisms altogether. All of the sudden, organisms like trilobites came about, which contained hundreds of THOUSANDS of cells! This is a huge gap in the evolutionary tree… If you forgot to post some of your evidence discrediting evolution, perhaps add it in the next round. See sources regarding the Cambrian explosion. It is a myth that the Cambrian explosion contradicts the tree of life [18] , and it’s a myth that trilobites [19] [20] and other forms [21] mysteriously pop into existence. Again, this is a god of the gaps argument. Regarding vestigials, I’m assuming you did not check my sources. Just because they might serve a function, does not mean it is optimal. [22] Keep in mind, your claim contradicts another creationist claim: That they are decayed remnants (from the fall?) and not examples of evolution. [23] ...not only is evolution not well supported, but is a JOKE If Evolution is a joke, then creationism is surely the punch line. As this is my final round, I would like observers to check my sources and think deeply about how well I have defended some of the foundations of Evolutionary Theory, cleared up misunderstandings, and responded to misplaced criticism. I would like to point out that my opponent introduced irrelevant topics to our debate on Biological Evolution (Abiogenisis, Planetary Evolution, God), cited religious sources in a scientific debate, and has demonstrated too much scientific naiveté to be considered credible in criticizing one of the most widely accepted scientific models in history. I do appreciate his sincerity, but this is too often clouded by an inability to genuinely seek empirical answers to empirical questions. By appealing to creationist propaganda, he seems not only unable to discredit Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, but unable to demonstrate a viable alternative. I wish him the best of luck for his final round. 1. http://talkorigins.org... 2. http://talkorigins.org... 3. http://exploringorigins.org... 4. http://talkorigins.org... 5. http://talkorigins.org...6. http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org... 7. http://www.sciencemag.org... 8. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 9. http://talkorigins.org... 10. http://talkorigins.org... 11. http://talkorigins.org... 12. http://talkorigins.org... 13. http://talkorigins.org... 14. http://www.eso.org... 15. http://www.space.com... 16. http://talkorigins.org... 17. http://talkorigins.org... 18. http://talkorigins.org... 19. http://talkorigins.org... 20. http://www.bioone.org... 21. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 22. http://talkorigins.org... 23. http://talkorigins.org...