Theory of evolution is valid

For our final round I will respond point by point. 1. You refuse to acknowledge DNA as code, or even any similarities. As I previously stated, a code is simply, sequences of data, which are able to be written and stored, read and understood. I used the example of code you provided as one type of code, and I also offered music, a written code so precise, it can not only be read with the eyes, but reproduced perfectly to the T, including not only the notes, but the intricacies of timing and volume level as well. I brought to light that once heard with the ear, this code is no longer just symbols on paper, but is now a code of frequency, which can also be recorded, and perfectly reproduced. I will give you some examples of how DNA is a code, according to scientists. "The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides. These triplets are called codons." http://www.biology-pages.info... "The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells." https://en.wikipedia.org... "Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA, using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time." https://en.wikipedia.org... "The code defines how sequences of nucleotide triplets, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis." https://en.wikipedia.org... "The DNA code contains instructions needed to make the proteins and molecules essential for our growth, development and health." http://www.yourgenome.org... Decoding messages is also a key step in gene expression, in which information from a gene is read out to build a protein. In this article, we'll take a closer look at the genetic code, which allows DNA and RNA sequences to be "decoded" into the amino acids of a protein. https://www.khanacademy.org... DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism. The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998 "The Information in DNA Determines Cellular Function via Translation" http://www.nature.com... These articles which you requested, prove that you are simply wrong, anyone can see this except apparently, you. DNA is in fact, a complex genetic code. 2. You state: Nowhere did I refuse to accept the Dahpne Major flood and its effect; it's obvious that you are trying to extend this specific example to the past; and you need evidence of this. I already called you out on this by copying your previous statement, and I will do so again. Here is your quote, yet once again, for everyone to see. "Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly." And yet again, Ill run this into the ground with the evidence you are wrong since you refuse to concede to your mistake. "The Grants" team has found that beak size is heritable. Roughly 65 percent of the phenotypic variance in beak length, and as much as 90 percent of the variance in beak depth, is attributable to additive genetic effects of alleles (h2=0.65 and 0.90, respectively; Boag 1983, Grant and Grant 1993). In other words, big-beaked birds tend to produce chicks with big beaks, and small-beaked birds tend to produce chicks with small beaks." "The Grants found that the size of a finch"s beak could make the difference between life and death. In 1977, Daphne Major was hit by a major drought. Most of the spurge plants died, leaving the medium ground finches without any small seeds to eat. Many of the birds died, most likely because they couldn"t crack open the big seeds from caltrop. The Grants discovered that within a few years, the population of finches had recovered. But now the average size of their beaks was deeper." Concerning Eyes. You recall yet again, the overall idea of how it is presumed to be possible, yet ignore the lack of complexity of the argument, still not addressing the formation of cone cells and other parts of the eye which function together, and would have no way to have developed on their own, as they are integral to individual complex systems within the eye, Meaning, entire systems within the eye would not have functioned unless they came into existence at the same time, as opposed to evolving slowly. This is important because as Darwin states.. ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species You state: "We do not need to find every missing link to know that evolution has taken place." I would remind you that you have not found even one full evolution of a species in all of the 8.7 million species on Earth. You may not "feel" you have to find every missing link, but to those of us who want solid evidence, its quite disturbing that you cannot even find one, on the entire planet, in 150 years of searching. I would also remind you that morphs within species are documented, and that ADAPTATION to environment based on genetic code is evidenced all around us, yet, this is different from the conclusions brought on by traditional views of evolution. I have made a case, as has science, that DNA is in fact, a code. I have made the case that it is impossible to understand how sever climate changes could effect species as we have simply not done enough research into the subject. However, the research I did provide clearly shows that the results of many within a species being killed off by environmental factors could be misconstrued as genetic evolution. As I evidenced above with the birds on Daphne Major. I offered to evidence, that the Cambrian Explosion offers the first fossils of eyes, and that these eyes are already complex, having shown no evidence of prior versions of the eyes evolution in any prior fossil record. My opponent holds that this is because the soft bodied organisms did not fossilize well. While this may be so, it may also NOT be so, there is no evidence of it, so, who is being more true to science? I would also argue that my opponent may well be very wrong about the fossilization of such organisms. For example, there are many many examples of soft bodied fossilization. This link from Berkeley will show you fossilized Cyanobacteria http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... You focus on a quote from a book which should be common knowledge and easily referenced in a conversation concerning Evolution, stating that I "quote-mined" it. A term Ive never heard, pardon my lack of debate experience. However, My concern was not the rest of his conclusion, as I know, and you know, and everyone knows what darwins conclusions on evolution were. My concern are Darwins own thoughts concerning what would debunk his theory, as he was truly a man of science who was seeking the truth, not just wanting to scam people into belief of a theory just because he created it. The first sentence of his statement did that for me, so I used it, so what? Are you concluding that we should disregard certain thoughts of Darwin when they dont suit your unreasonable faith in evolution? That is nonsense, and again, trying to frame me as dishonest due to your own lack of clarity. The only thing that I believe you are one hundred percent correct on, is when you admit "I find myself ending this debate on a rather sad note.." Now, there's a quote mine for you buddy. In conclusion, I feel I have decimated my opponent in every aspect of this argument. His hate for creationists is obvious, and blinds him to common questions even bright scientific minds acknowledge concerning evolution. I did not even state that I was a creationist, it was his assumption because that happened to be the site I grabbed Darwin's quote from. Im not going to dwell on the petty though. On every topic of importance to the argument, he failed to combat my stance effectively. For anyone who takes the time to read our debate, thank you for your time! It means a lot. Please remember to be non bias as possible whatever your stance. The judging is on our debate, not prior knowledge gleaned from elsewhere, so, in that vein, dont vote for me just because you believe in God, and dont vote for him just because your an Atheist, I only ask that you judge us based on the merit of our debate, and the information therein. Thank you! Fair winds and following seas my friends!