evolution is false

"Also, he attempts to point out my minor errors in grammar and spelling to cover up that his argument is flawed. And he points out that "wikipedia is reliable because it had over 270 sources for that particular subject," well if i brought 270 people to my opponent and said that cartoons are real would he believe me? From the looks of it maybe so." I mentioned your errors in grammar and spelling in the first round. It was my first statement. Wikipedia is a fine source so long as you have evidence and sources. I would not believe you if you had 270 people backing you up on cartoons, because we know as a matter of fact that cartoons aren't real people. Evolution, however, is a debatable topic. "I would like to point out that my questions are valid and are very relevant to the topic at hand. Birds growing wings would be of absolutely no benefit to them until after they were developed enough to fly, but their would have had to been thousands of years of growth of these wings." I suppose so, but I don't see how this has much relevance with evolution. Long ago, dinosaurs, who evolved into modern day birds, possibly could have used wings that we are not used to seeing today. For example, pterosaurs had wings of skin that evolved into feathered wings for better aerodynamics [1]. Besides what my opponent has been asking, birds have also been big factors for evidence of evolution. In the 1860s, a 150 million year old bird fossil was dug up called the Archaeopteryx. Now this dinosaur-like bird isn't the ancestor of all birds, but simply a link between the two. There are many other early period birds such as the Confuciusornis, the Enantiornithes, Yanornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and the Hesperornithiformes. "While my opponent merely states untrue statements repeatedly and is trying to avoid the point of my debate. And once again, IT IS STILL A FISH!" Also, my opponent has made multiple grammar errors." To my opponent, I must say you explain nothing of the things you criticize me about. Which untrue statements? If I make them, I will explain them, but you need to tell me. You can't claim I make multiple grammatical errors when you don't tell me which. Something can still be something depending on how you would define it. Some of the earliest fish were the Agnatha. This was a jawless fish that was extremely armored with a rasping, sucking mouth [2]. Most species of this "fish" are extinct except for two others. There is also evidence showing that fish evolved into creatures that could walk on land. In south-central Poland tetrapod (four-footed creature) tracks were found preserved in marine tidal flat sediments. Some of the tracks show little prints, evidence that the animal walked on land [3]. "Ok so an animal has traits of a dinosaur and a bird, so? And the ambulocetus was basically a whale with legs point remains the same it is still a whale! It didn't turn into a pigeon and fly away! Also it was a horse then and it's a horse now. microevolution says that small changes will occur to a species over time to help it adapt, but one species wont turn into another completely different species." So? So?? This is a very critical piece of evidence that dinosaurs EVOLVED into birds! This shows evolution, certainly macroevolution, as you requested. No, the ambulocetus was certainly not a whale. The ambulocetus was a crocodile that was mainly amphibious but could walk on land. It was simply nicknamed a "walking whale." It is not still a whale. It never was. This is proof of macroevolution and my opponent seems to have conceded. Species will evolve into other species. From monkey to man, from dinosaur to birds, and from fish to various tetrapods. "How is it a new population? If it can't breed then that species dies with that animal. So that statement is illogical." It's a new population, because members of a species mutate to a point where they're different than their former selves. They can still breed, just not with other insects, only themselves. "But earlier you said that we also came from wheat plant. And now your saying that our farthest relatives are apes. Once again your going back on yourself." I didn't say we CAME from wheat plants. I say we share a few similarities in genes with them. For example, wheat plant have two sets of chromosomes, just like humans. Wheat plants and humans share an XY sex-determination system. However, we do share many more commonalities with apes and primates, specifically 96%. "Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons." It's not about the chromosomes, it's about the genetics. Have you ever heard of the two-headed babies, or six-fingered people? This is due to genetic mutation within the body. Genes are like a computer program. Some of the features never show up or never have been used. Some genes are turned on, some are turned off. That's why no one looks alike. Environmental factors can emphazise the "turning on" of genes and "turning off" of genes. The two last paragraphs my opponent has typed up are very strange. They don't sound like him. It sounds much more like plagarism, as there seems to be an increased vocabulary and better grammar and more evidence. Also, for some reason, I can't open up the source you cited. It could be a problem with my computer, so it's fine. "The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed" Most often, yes, DNA does not change rapidly. But sometimes, DNA does change, and it could be favorable. This is how new species are born. This is speciation and DNA/genetic mutation. "Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory." What does the seocnd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution? Can you state this in your own words? Evolution does have scientific proof. I have given evidence of fossils and genetic mutations and similarities in genes. "Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile." Mars has not been fully investigated. It's still a mystery. An atmosphere suitable to support life forms? There is poor oxygen to breathe. Currently on Mars, there are many sulfuric gases, hard for any life to exist except deep-sea creatures. Mars very well could have had oxygen back then, and lifeforms could have existed. However, this mystery is yet to truly be revealed. I eagerly await the response. This has been relatively fun and interesting. Sources: 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.nature.com...