Evolution proves that god is real

IntroductionI thank UnknownOne for instigating this debate, as Con I will argue that it is not the case that evolution proves that God exist. Since the focus of this debate is evolution, I will only deal with the arguments presented by my opponent. To me it seems that the BoP is on him. With that out of the way, let's get started.DefinitionsGod: Pro defines God as "the one who creates the universe", but presumably he meant "created" since the creation of the universe is already done, it exists.Evolution:"Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."(1)Abiogenesis:"Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis"(2)Natural Selection:"Natural selection, process that results in the adaption of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution."Argument 1: CreationPro uses the word "creation" in multiple contexts, the universe and evolution, but this is an equivocation since in this passage he is clearly referring to creatio ex nihilo, the creation of something out of nothing:"atoms are recycled, energy changes positions- but none of this constitutes creation. Creation is the act of making something new."But this is neither the case for evolution (as I will show later) nor the universe (not part of this debate).An oversimplified example (selective breeding not natural selection): If you want to breed dogs with very large ears you need to match dogs who already have significantly big ears.The reason for this is that the ear-size is in part controlled by genes, i.e., sections of an organisms genome. By matching dogs with big ears the genes responsible for them will be passed on to their children which will hopefully result in them having even bigger ears.The "creation" of this new genome only involves creatio ex materia, the creation of something out of something else, not creatio ex nihilo as my opponent suggest.As for the origin of life, abiogenesis is the prevailing explanation which, too, is creatio ex materia, since all that happens both in abiogensis and evolution is the "recycling", as my opponent calls it, of atoms and molecules.None of this requires or proves God.Argument 2: LoveLove is the main criteria for our selection of procreation partners, as my opponent correctly points out, but the question is "Why do we love someone?"Love is no arbitrary process, that's out of question, but it is not supernatural either, no matter how it makes us feel. We choose our mates because we are attracted to them, however we are not attracted to some platonic form of "Susan" or "John", we are attracted to certain properties other people have. We interpret properties like a healthy physique as "He/She must be a great mating partner!"."But what does this have to do with evolution?" one might ask.The feeling we call "love" is a result of various neurotransmitters that influence us so that we form emotional bonds which in this case eventually lead to procreation.Animals that experience a this drive are more likely to mate, hence have higher fitness than animals that do not.None of this requires or proves God.ConclusionIn my opening statement I refuted both arguments presented by Pro. Next round I will defend these objections.Thanks for reading.Sources(1) http://www.britannica.com...(2) http://www.britannica.com...(3) http://www.britannica.com...