Evolution is the best theory for the diversity of life.

1. Vestigial Structures My definition of vestigial structure was "a structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution, such as human appendixes." In other words, the structure is vestigial if it has no function or if it basically has lost all of its function. So the ostrich wings do not count as vestigial structures since their wings do serve multiple purposes like my opponent has already admitted. Yes, the wings do not allow the creature to fly. So what? That doesn't make the wings vestigial since the wings serve many other purposes. And evolution fails when it comes to the supposed existence of vestigial structures because the ignorance of man is the problem. Like I said, Robert Wiedersheim's list of vestigial structures were refuted. All 186 of those structures on the list had functions. We humans just couldn't figure out what they were for the longest time. I bring this up again since my opponent pretty much dropped the argument. My opponent says that "It wasn't the retelling of some orthodox evolutionary narrative, but an explanation of why this fact is evidence, namely that it is directly predicted by evolutionary theory." My opponent thinks that evolution has whittled down the size of ostrich wings so that they could use them for other purposes. Good for him. But my opponent has only stated a bare assertion. So for now, all we know is that ostriches can't fly yet their wings serve other purposes. As for the second example my opponent gave, they only spent a single sentence discussing Apterocyclus honolulensis. If they want to expand on that point a little, I could address it further. 2. Predictions I said last round that transitional forms would have died off during the supposed evolutionary process. My opponent disagrees with me. They write "This misconception seems to come from the kind of Pokemon model of evolution - one previous, "inferior" form is done away with completely in favor of the evolved "superior" form. This is just wrong. There's no reason that feathers and scales couldn't coexist on early bird ancestors, especially considering that they coexist on modern birds." I think there is very good reason to doubt the evolutionary theory here. A reptile evolving into a bird would have to slowly lose most of its scales and then slowly gain feathers. They wouldn't just coexist right away and hence the transitional form would not be able to survive. My opponent then states that "Essentially, evolution said they should find a proto-tetrapod on Ellesmere Island, and so a small team went and actually found it. Predictive power is crucial in any scientific theory." I would appreciate some links or some kind of information on this matter. Just saying that evolution predicted something is pretty vague. And the links my opponent gave were just links to home pages of some websites. 3. Nested Hierarchical Tree: My opponent states that "this actually is a great time to illustrate my point further. Yes, we can agree that those machines for transportation were intelligently designed, but they actually bolster my argument." For the record, my opponent losses the point as soon as they admit that something is intelligently designed. The illustration obviously represents intelligent design and the nested trees in the fossils represents that as well. Then they claim that "since we know that machines aren't subject to evolution, we can find violations of the nested hierarchy." I am not sure if I would call these violations. I would say that humans created different groups of machines and some of them resemble each other and some of them look more different than each other. As for DNA, my answer is literally the exact same thing as I would say for your last point. Nested hierarchical trees do not have to indicate common descent. They could easily indicate a common designer as well. My opponent says "This is just your personal opinion. What I was saying is that while evolution prohibits such violations of nested hierarchies, creationism can account for them easily (e.g. 'That's just how God designed them')." My opponent seems to forget both of us interpret the evidence differently. The nested tress can either show common ancestry or intelligent design depending on what worldview we bring to the table. So we both have opinions based on the same evidence. 4. Evolution My opponent asked me what evolution couldn't explain. I mentioned a few things. I wasn't tying to get them to prove abiogenesis or where morality came from. I was simply answering their question. 5. Micro Vs Macro My opponent thinks that microevolution is the same process as macroevolution. The problem is that macroevolution has never been proven. The evidence used to support it is DNA similarity, nested trees in the fossils, and etc...My opponent has brought them up but as we can see, the evidence can also support a creator. Thanks to my opponent. It has been fun so far.