Given the available data, denying the theory of evolution is completely unreasonable

It is interesting to note that, in this round, my opponent simply objected to certain details WITHIN the theory of evolution, pointing out some details where the experts disagree. I hope that my opponent is not trying to say that since there is disagreement, the whole theory falls. That is not how science works. Moreover, the majority of sources that my opponent provides are books. Although this not a bad thing in itself, it prevents me from confirming them and I suspect that my opponent did not actually read any of these books which means that he may have fallen prey to quote mining from anti-evolutionist (and most likely creationist/ID) websites. The first disagreement that my opponent addresses is the bipedality of Lucy, one of the most famous specimen of Australopithecus afarensis ever found. While there are SOME disagreements regarding whether Lucy was really entirely bipedal, the VAST majority of scientists do believe that Lucy was bipedal. The evidence for bipedality exceeds far beyond the "one gets the impression" that my opponents points to; footprints (1) and bone structure (2) provide more than enough evidence. Also, Lucy is far from being the only specimen that points to bipedality (5). As I said, there are no "widely different interpretations" of Australopithecus' fossils. Pointing to minor disagreements on a specimen's bipedality hardly counts as "the experts themselves don"t know for sure what this creature was like". But Con is right, bipedality is not a PROOF of evolution, it is simply evidence. This paragraph betrays a misunderstanding of the scientific vocabulary, specifically regarding biological classifications. Regarding this quote: "It apelike features are beyond question", he comments "That sounds like an ape to me". The definition of the word ape, much like the word kind, tends to vary (it has no actual scientific definition). The most common use of the word refers to primate, which is an order. In this context, humans are, by definition, apes and the quote from Christine Berge becomes meaningless. The fact that A. afarensis climbed trees is not in any way a refutation of its bipedality OR of its role as a human ancestor (for example, the common ancestor to cats and dogs was arboreal (3) and yet cats and dogs are not). The beggining of this paragraph is once again based on a misunderstanding of the word ape. The argument that my opponent brings up regarding pygmies is difficult to understand; he claims that if they were all to die suddenly then scientists would probably mistake them as not humans because they are shorter than most humans(or at least that is my understanding of the argument). The problem is that height is not a very decisive factor in biological classification; for example, the height of homo erectus varied greatly (4). "If Lucy was alive today she"d be in the zoo with the other apes, not walking around with us. " actually, given the fact that she would be millions of years old, she would most likely be in a lab. Con faults me for supporting my list of fossils with websites instead of making my own arguments. Well I'm sorry but in a debate about science, one's arguments are practically worthless if there is no scientific evidence to back it up. He claims that he took the time to make his own arguments, but most of his previous paragraphs are quotes. He also claims that he explained why Lucy was not a transitional fossil, but all he did was quote some people who disagree on the current interpretation of the evidence regarding her bipedality, not her value as a transitional fossil. This paragraph, particularly the link provided, is extremely strange. He is basically saying that since we found evidence that a four-legged animal existed prior to tiktaalik, the latter can no longer be considered a transitional fossil. He says that "Tiktaalik cannot possibly be THE transitional between fish and amphibians as evolutionists claim", as if there was a single transitional species between sea creatures and land creatures. The link he provided clearly says: "The discovery helps to refine the timing of the transition from our fishy ancestors to land creatures"; his own source disagrees with him. This also goes for all the majority of his quotes. What does this say about my argument regarding the accurate prediction? How does the discovery of another transitional species invalidate the discovery of tiktaalik? "Tiktaalik was supposedly found in the right place, with the right age, with the right morphology, DNA, and all the stuff that evolutionists claim are their proofs that this is a transitional, and yet we have good evidence that it isn't transitional because tetrapods existed before tiktaalik. " First of all, its not "supposedly", its fact that scientists predicted the existence of such a creature. They simply evaluated the age of the oldest known tetrapod and then conjectured that, slightly prior to its existence, there must have been a animal that was "half-land creature and half-sea creatures". So they searched northern Canada (where the rocks are just the right age) and they found precisely what they were looking for. And how does this address my point regarding phylogenetics? "I could say the existence of human beings fits in with theological assumptions about creation, but that doesn't prove creation is true. " Again, post-hoc rationalization. The difference between the creation example and tiktaalik is that humans were already there when the "creation hypothesis" was invented; the observations that lead to the hypothesis can not be used as predictions to support said hypothesis, that is circular reasoning. My opponent brings up archaeopteryx and the fact that we found a fossil of an ancient bird (Aurornis xui) that is older than archaeopteryx. Just like in the previous example, my opponent wrongly assumes that finding an older fossil somehow refutes the existence of the currently existing ones, as if evolution states that a dinosaur gave birth to a halfbird-halfdinosaur which in turn gave birth to a bird. That is not how evolution works; the transition involves A LOT of transitional forms. Aurornis is not evidence against evolution, it is evidence FOR evolution. . http://www.bbc.com...I find it amusing that, in these two lasts paragraphs, my opponent decided to point to potential transitionnal species in order to argue AGAINST evolution. In his next round, I would like my opponent to give the website on which he finds his quotes, even if they were initially written in a book. I would also remind him to give me his definition of kind AND an example. Finally, I would like him to give a quick respnse regarding my language analogy; I know that it is only an analogy, but I believe that it is good enough to deserve some attention. (1) . http://efossils.org...(2) . https://iho.asu.edu...(3) . http://www.gather.com...(4) . http://humanorigins.si.edu...(5) . http://australianmuseum.net.au...