Evolution occurs

"Chickens are descendants of T-Rex's." Evidence? Theory even? "Chimpanzees and Humans have a common ancestor." Evidence, theory even? Then I can offer a rebuttal.. no argument, NO REBUTTAL! "Designer...? I don't understand, who would design the animals? " The Lord God Almighty and Sovereign Creator or ALL! Eternal King, Immortal.. Invisable.. The Alpha and The Omega. I strongly suggest you read Genesis chapters 1-3 and John chapter 1 for how everything REALLY came into being. But, I'm forgetting myself.. it's not MY burden of proof but YOURS. "You misunderstand. Yes, new species arise, but the species from which they evolved to not vanish. MAcroevolution is the branching of lineages, not the replacement of lineages necessarily." So why are there distinct species at all? and not just a gradual, continual lineage of creatures? "I am not advocating that no malign mutations take place. In fact, a vast majority of mutations are detrimental. There are some beneficial mutations though, and those are the ones which are passed on the most, since it helps the carrier live. Give me one reason why, out of all the accidental little changes in genetic code, there would never be a mutation that helps. Accidents do not discriminate." Again, you have spectacuarly FAILED to provide one example of a beneficial mutation.. surely there MUST be many seeing as there is an amazing abundance of life on the planet.. the number of beetles alone is mind boggling. [There has been NO increase in genetic complexity. An increase in genetic complexity is absolutely CRUCIAL for macro evolution to occur.] "Why?" BECAUSE you do NOT get from a single cell amoeba to the most complex known quantity in the universe (namely US!) without an increase in genetic complexity. "Actually, mutations kill individuals, but generally speaking, it does not affect the species as a whole, and here is why. The animals which have harmful mutations tend to die off before they can reproduce, so malign mutations usually phase out of the gene pool." Sure, but without an example of a benefical mutation you still have ALL your work a head of you. "And also, way to completely dodge my question. You have changed the subject. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself by suggesting that species adapt beneficially but never have beneficial mutations. Please address this in your next post. You have made a very clear contradiction of yourself which makes your entire argument moot." Not at all, I claimed (AND provided the example of the blind salamander) that mutations occur but are never benefical for the species as a whole. Here's another, very general example.. many species have become smaller over the millenia.. this has obvious advantages with regards to food and escaping prey etc BUT can in NO way be described as an improvement for the species, no increase in complexity. "Please note: my opponent has advocated that microevolution does in fact occur, and so therefore he must be of the belief that beneficial mutations occur." Not at ALL, for the reasons already stated. "Here again you have implied that some thing created everything perfectly and instantaneously. This idea seems rather absurd to me or at the very least far out there. Can you provide some sort of evidence for this? You have made a pretty bold assertion (that some sort of entity created everything perfectly), with absolutely no backing. I'm afraid I can't consider your point valid without some sort of evidence." Well, without any evidence to the contrary WHATSOEVER (if you're anything to go by) what other conclusion can we arrive at? we, it, came from somewhere! In CONCLUSION my opponent has failed to provide ANY proof whatsoever or even show examples for his arguments. Even though the burden of proof lay with him I have consistently indulged him by rebutting his arguments to the best of my ability.