Evolution is a sound scientific concept

I can already tell it will be challenging. Rebuttal 1: Pro Argued: "Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. " Counterpoint 1.1: Let's go back on what evolution essentially is: the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins. [1] Counterpoint 1.2: DNA is not intelligent enough to figure out that due to some condition, the species it belongs to is dying out. It cannot see through an organism's flesh. That is unscientific. Also, they cannot consciously evolve themselves. One thing you appear to be forgetting is that speciation takes millions of years according to the theory of evolution, so that would probably be too long for the dying species to evolve into a new species so they could survive. Rebuttal 2: Pro argued: ". .. across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. .. The lizards had changed their body shape in response to the flora in their environment. " Here is a new idea for why they "evolved" into new species: the floral images got stuck in their brains with the fear of dying out, and then their brains, out of fear, commanded their DNA to change so it could survive the new conditions. Because their brain DNA had changed, the rest of their DNA changed accordingly. Evolution is when DNA intentionally changes. Doing something out of fear is allowing one's emotions to control them, not doing it volitionally. Rebuttal 3: Pro argued: "Vaccines are constantly changing because, the viruses keep evolving to the vaccines and actually become resistant to them this is called natural selection only the fittest survive. " That is not evolution. That is a process that I will refer to as "Micro-BTD" because it is analogous to when you are playing a game of BTD Battles in assault mode and you figure out that your bloon sends are ineffective because your opponent's defenses are too strong. You notice, however, that they do not have any towers that can detect camo bloons. What do you decide to do in response? you send in an MOAB or stronger containing camos, causing your opponent to lose for sure. But did anything evolve? No. You simply came back with a new weapon. That is what viruses are doing when they "evolve" to the vaccine. They could simply be going to their "bankers," as I will call them, and "borrowing" genes that allow them to fool the cells' defense system into thinking they are their allies. Rebuttal 4: Pro argued: "An observation of speciation involving plants, was a study done by Hugo de Vries. He was studying the genetics of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and discovered that a new variant evolved that could not breed with the Oenothera Lamarckiana, and had a different amount of chromosomes. This means, a brand new species evolved, that was observed in a laboratory over long periods of time the new species is named O. gigas. )" Again, that could be emotions mixed with brain chemistry. A new idea for why they "evolved": The plants have gotten in a fight over the nutrients in their shared soil, and one got angry, so its nuclei told the DNA to change into something else so it couldn't philosophically "marry" the other plant. Since it was from emotion, the evolution was not intentional, therefore not really evolution. Rebuttal 5: Pro argued that the fossil record supports evolution. Here is a video about why it does not: . http://m.youtube.com... Rebuttal 6: Pro argued: "Extensive genetic change has been observed. " That does not "develop" us. It changes only our phenotype, not our genotype, so it cannot be counted as evolution because it does not count as development. New Argument 1: The "multiple scenario" argument Because of the biodiversity and the billions of years it supposedly took for the human species to appear, there are many different ways that evolution could have played out, therefore many different things we could look like today if it happened. I will tackle more on this later. New Argument 2: The "extinct fish" argument The theory of evolution claims that a fish got on land and eventually evolved into a human. Because it was a fish, it had gills and therefore could not have possibly have survived on land, so that would render human existence impossible. Best case scenario: some of the fish survive by getting to the surface, but they pass on severe throat damage from choking in the water to their offspring, which acts as a major limiting factor as it restricts breathing. Therefore, they eventually go extinct, completely preventing human existence. Just to make this debate less boring, here are a couple of silly clips about why evolution is impossible: . http://m.youtube.com... . http://m.youtube.com... New Argument 3: The "unguided process" argument As I demonstrated in the "multiple scenario" argument, evolution could have played out in a lot of different ways, so it is most definitely an unguided process. I will now demonstrate further that it is an unguided process. It is analogous to giving a robot free will and asking it to do something for you. 1. Either way, it is an unguided process 2. Unguided processes do not always have good results. The robot could do whatever it wanted to. And it could wreak havoc for all you know. Evolution is an unguided process too, and yet Darwinists claim it resulted in good physical structures. As for the "vestigial" structures? Good uses are being found for them, such as organs That once seemed useless [2]. New Argument 4: The "perfect creation" argument Because evolution is an unguided process and yet did not leave any organs useless, that debunks a fair portion of evolution because since it did not need to happen, it was a coincidence. But even if it did happen, it was still an unpredictable coincidence. Therefore, if there is no such thing as a vestigial structure, then we were divinely created rather than evolving. A small reminder to my opponent: because of the second definition he gave of the word "sound," "free from logical flaws," if just one of my arguments is left standing, at the end of the debate, then he is disproven. Sources: [1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]- . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...