evolution is false

"Now back on topic my opponent has completely ignored his own mistake that I pointed out at the beginning of the last round showing that he has no awnser." I believe you are talking about the contradictory statement about subtle changes mattering and then not mattering? Here is my response. I defined evolution as "subtle changes." It would appear that you didn't agree with me, arguing that I paid no attention to macroevolution, evolution over a large scale. So, it would appear that subtlety didn't matter anymore, since you did want large forms of evolution to be proven. "That was merely an example the point im making is that no matter how many sources you have wikipedia can't be proven true." You can't blatantly state your argument and then not explain it. Please explain why, in the case of a billion sources on Wikipedia, that Wikipedia cannot be true. "My opponent has totally ignored my question and took the rest of the paragraph. Also will developing those wings of flesh the dinosaur would be at as big a disadvantage as the bird therefore my point remains the same." I clearly, very clearly stated my answer in the very first sentence! There was no argument in this response. It was simply just a question. Developing wings of skin, not flesh, was an advantage for the dinosaur, due to the fact that it could take to the skies, find prey, and escape certain predators. "The world shifts, water levels change, how do you know that the place was not covered in water then? Many fish walk on the bottom of the ocean how can you prove that it isn't one of them?" Please list some examples of walking fish. Upon my research, I only find that there are fish that can crawl, but do not possess actual arms and legs. Also, I don't see how the water level could have changed that dramatically. The ocean is 14,000 feet. The water level could not have possibly shifted so largely, especially so negatively, when our ice caps are melting. "What does that have to do with dinosaurs turning into birds. We are talking about walking whale things here. And how is that macroevolution it was a crocodile then and it is the same thing now." We are talking about Ambulocetus' more specifically... Anyway, it is not still a crocodile. We're not 100% sure of what it truly was. But, we do know that it was the animal that evolved into our whale. I apologize for I mispoke about dinosaurs evolving into birds. Scratch that out. I was too focused on the previous refutation. But the Ambulocetus is a perfect example of macroevolution, due to the fact that it is a transitional fossil from land-living mammals to whales. "Not only does DNA stop any mutations but what are the chances that multiple flies would mutate into the same thing at the same time? Its already incredibly unlikely that it would mutate in the first place but to go so far as to say that multiple would mutate into the same thing at the same time is out of this world unlikely. And didn't you say that evolution was subtle genetic changes? Is that subtle?" DNA does not stop mutations. We have proof of mutations, or speciation. I think you have the wrong idea of mutation... It's not like everything will suddenly morph into an extremely different-looking bug. Speciation is small changes. It doesn't have to be at the same time. Perhaps a housefly encountered a strange substance and brought it back to the rest of the flies. Yes, these are subtle genetic changes. It's a small change in the species. "Then what is the point of that statement at all?" The point of this statement is relative to the point of your previous question. "That is so wrong....Its the alleles that you get from the parents that decide all of that! Your alleles decide all your traits. That's taught by every science teacher ever." Alleles determine distinct traits, not all traits. And plus, everything in a gene can be affected by mutation. If you have two-headed parents or a specific genetic mutation involved, you will end up have two-heads. "I just told you the second law of thermodynamics goes against evolution their both theory's so one of them has to be wrong right?" Yes, you just told me... You never explained it like many other arguments you claimed... Explain in the final round why thermodynamics goes against evolution. "Thousands of years ago the air was breathable and their was water yet still no life. why is that? Why would a planet that's as livable as ours not have life?" We do not yet know that it does not contain life. Mars has not been completely thoroughly explored yet. The point is moot. I await the response.