The Theory of Evolution Is Valid

I am disappointed with my opponent dropping my arguments and attacking strawmen, but we'll get to that. In a nut shell: The theory of evolution appeals to randomness, which means it have a very wide range of flexibility. If it can accommodate both observation A and observations Not-A, all of them are independent from the theory or it's evidence. It is like playing a game of: "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose". Any evidence against or for evolution will be claimed to be evidence for evolution. 1- Nested Hiearchy Philosophers have been classifying life with humans at the top since Aristotle. Anything that have a single common trait (like life) can be classified. My opponent presents typology as an evidence for evolution. This is, as I said before, not evidence for or against evolution. The theory of evolution never predicted any hierarchy. In fact, it would be just as easy to claim that an unintelligent random process is responsible for creatures that are very different from their recent ancestors (You believe swimming raccoon-foxes became whales right?), or that an overlapping and confusing tree is evidence for species evolving. Evolution does not predict or require nested hierarchy or any type of classification. If life started 5 times in this planet, the theory of evolution can effortlessly accommodate them. If there was a bird-like mammal, no problem, they can use the secret backup ad hoc known as convergent evolution again and it is effortlessly accommodated. Quite interesting that my opponent presented a claim that cannot be proven or falsified. He ends with an argument from ignorance, like people haven't said that this is evidence for a common designer before. 2- Past History My opponent begins with something that can be explained with simple mathematics. The least immune survive, those who are more immune live and produce. I am not sure how my opponent attempts to imply that natural selection creates eyes, hearts, and species. Again, my opponent needs to prove the theory of evolution, not adaption or variation. A- Vestigality & B- Atavism My opponent presents an argument from ignorance. The truth is, we can never prove any organ to be vestigial, and multiple organs claimed to be so have been found to have a purpose. Robert Wiedersheim had built the list of vestigial organs of almost 90 parts in humans, yet they were found to have a purpose. (1) In modern times, you can list what? About 4 questionable claims of vestigality? Not only is this unprovable, it is irrelevant again. The opposite of this prediction cannot falsify evolution. This is something called "atrophy", which is not the theory of evolution. I would like to ask my opponent this question: Why is the possibility that these organs are evolving are neglected? Isn't evolution a work-in-progress process? Because there is no evidence that organ-evolving is even possible? Why isn't there a list or at least one organ claimed to be evolving into something better? My opponent attempts to incorporate abnormalities form genetic errors via. mutations like polydactyly and teratoma tumors, into evolution. Not to mention that the claims are too vague to make any conclusion or assumption. I thought evolution was supposed to be progressive. Really, the same with radiation causing species to have extra legs, it is a copying error caused by mutation. Nowhere does it provide evidence that mutation can invent organs or that they are reverting to their ancestors a couple of million years ago. And then there is the claim of human tails. My opponent presents a picture of a coccylyx and claims that it represents a literal skeletal bone. 95% of the population has 7C, 12 T, 5 L and 5 S vertebrae. 3% have 1 or 2 more vertebrae. 2% have 1 less. (2) Judging from the previous data, it would appear to be a normal coccylyx. Even if there are genetic errors, what does this supposed to prove? What is the evidence for the assumption that this is a reminiscence from monkeys? (I thought apes are supposed to be our closest ancestor) This is like a merchant who loses money with every trip, but assumes the net total would make him rich. C- Common Anatomies Embryo resemblance: This was the most suprising for me. Not because it is true, but because it is very false. My opponent employs Haeckel's drawings which are based on a fraud. My opponent's own source admits this. (3) My opponent claims that the embryo of most complex animals are essentially the same. I will let the viewers judge. Here is a comparision of human embryo with different animals at different stages: (Very large picture) http://www.ichthus.info... At this stage, my opponent's source have lost validity by showing fake and cherry picked drawings of tailbud stages as evidence. Similarity & Homology: My opponent shows that animals are similar. Then he claims that it is evidence for evolution. This observation further confirms that creatures are biochemically related. We live in the same planet, we drink water, creatures depend on each other to feed. That is it. So how is this evidence for the claims of the theory of evolution? D- Relatedness This is the same with the previous "evidence". Since evolution never predicted this, it cannot prove evolution, and it's absence cannot falsify evolution. Does cytochrome c mean that humans evolved from rattle snakes? (4) Here is a cytochrome b tree: Does this mean cats and whales are primates? Once more, this claim requires too many assumptions. Inclduing that the theory of evolution is possible. (1) http://science.howstuffworks.com... (2) http://web.indstate.edu... (3) http://www.talkorigins.org... (4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...