evolution is false

First off I will point out my opponents disregard for macroevolution which utterly disproves his entire point. Also, saying that evolution was merely just the subtle genetic changes in an organisms body, than the transition from ape to human would still be a good bit more than a subtle genetic change. Plus apes have twenty four pairs of chromosomes while a human has twenty three pairs, would you consider this a subtle genetic change? "Wings developed as a result of evolutionary development of birds many millions of years ago. Wings would have provided selective advantages for food and resource gathering along with in helping the organism to escape from predators more effectively. When did natural selection say that birds would die because of wings? They're still here, aren't they? They have wings, don't they? They never died out and the wings have been a benefit, as has evolution." To begin with wouldn't it have taken very long periods of time in order to fully develop those wings to be able to use them to fly correct? well when they grew fairly large but still were not big enough to fly wouldn't these wings slow them down? and doesn't natural selection say that with those wings slowing them down they would be more likely to die off? Yes they are still here so there is evidence against natural selection right there. Why would they develop wings to get away from their predators rather than something that made more since like the ability to climb or dig or use camouflage? Wouldn't that be much easier than spending millions of years developing wings that ,until fully developed, would only get in the way? "How do you know evolution stopped? The matter could very well still be continuing on, little changes day by day. For more drastic changes, evolution requires a long amount of time. There is many scientific evidence in our fossil records that shows evolution. For example, if you look at sediment near the ocean, you will find that the layers near the top possess fish and other marine animal bones. Go down deeper and eventually you will have seashells." What do seashells have to do with it those seashells and every other fossil record shows no signs of alteration. Why don't we see the shells turning into fish? all you would find is shells and fish but nothing in between. "Lucy, Iceman, other homosapiens, and dinosaurs. No fossil records? You are very, very mistaken." That is besides the point none of these are the missing link you are avoiding my point and your point should be disregarded as irrelevant. Also you are using wikipedia and wikipedia can be altered by anyone who can read HTML and therefore none of your points can be proven true because your using an unreliable source. "I would be interested to see what evolution means to my opponent. If he attends a Christian school, then most likely evolution is taught very poorly, or even in some other school. To me, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations [1]. This happens. We've observed it. The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. This change was, by definition, evolution." Yes that is evolution, microevolution that is, which says that like you said is just subtle changes, which is true, there will be subtle changes you can't get around that so I will say that I didn't mention that I do believe in microevolution, but the moth is still a moth it did not turn into a canary. Once again you have totally ignored macroevolution. It is ridiculous to say that one day a cell just materialized then multiplied became a fish, randomly grew legs, crawled on land and became people that makes absolutely no since! This is what evolution means to me. I do not attend a Christian school I go to a regular high school, and am actually taking biology this semester. "For example, two fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce offspring in the lab over a four-year span. They then became two different species." I have absolutely no reason to believe this. Why did they become sterile? And how did that alter the species in any way shape or form? "A new species of firewood was created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original wood." Chromosomes just don't randomly double in nature! That is a man-made species and is not an example of evolution. "From one species of mouse on the Faeroe Islands evolved numerous, multiples other species." "5 new species of cichlid fish have been formed in a single lake due to one species being introduced 4,000 years before." neither of these is clear. Also it is still a mouse and still a fish! they didn't both turn into dogs randomly. Before anything else is said on these two you need to clarify what they "evolved into." " Once again, there is fossil evidence. The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always relates to relative development. There are more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. There are constant discoveries of new transitional forms such as reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows." That's microevolution its still a whale and still a cow. You have, once again totally disregarded macroevolution you prove to me time and time again that you don't know what your talking about. "Molecular evidence. These are commonalities in DNA which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record due to radiometric dating." If we branched off from apes six million years ago why didn't Neanderthals exist until 230,000 years ago? And why don't we have fossils of creatures that are imbetween apes and men? " Homology. Same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs." Well if we have a common ancestor why do any of those creatures exist? If we evolved from them then why didn't they all just become humans and then die off because the evolved into humans? If an ape turned into a man then there is no point in an ape because it became a man it is imperfect and should have died off because of this. therefore your own point goes against it. "We also see how humans evolve. In 2006, a 4.2 million year old fossil was discovered [2]. Interestingly enough, it was found near seven other species of human, in a "fossil hotspot." Taking the bones previously discovered, scientists saw the chain of human evolution, which proves that humans evolve. There is, more recently, a fossil that was unearthed in April this year. It was a nine-year old boy that lived in a period of time when our ancestors began to climb down from trees and lived on the ground [3]." Evolution says that apes came down from trees then evolved you just said they evolved from apes to men then came down from trees. Learn your stuff before you respond.