Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

I accept this challenge. My goal in this debate shall be to not only show that Evolution is supported by science, but to also enlighten a bit of the inner workings of science via definitions, examples, and any credible evidence I find for my position. And although I see this as a "Evolution vs Creation" argument (which in of itself isn't a good selection of things to fight each other), I shall refrain from mentioning Creationism as well as I humanly can. ______________________________________________ Now first, I would like to explain that "Evolution" and the "Theory of Evolution" are two different things. "Evolution" is the natural process that has been found in the wild. "The Theory of Evolution" is science's way of explaining how this occurs. Thus far it's explanation in simplest form is this: Evolution happens as species adapt to their environments via mutations, and carry their genes down to their children, which is then passed further down, and further down. Along the way other mutations are added to the mix which is garnered from birth via taking on both parents' DNA and mutations that are collected throughout life (with what you eat, diseases/viruses you encountered, solar radiation, etc). And through the process of "survival of the fittest" those with inferior mutations die off while successful ones survive, reproduce, and have their mutations more likely to carry to the next generation. And over the course of time, after a species undergoes various mutations selected by natural forces, the species will branch off into different species while the parent species sadly goes extinct. One of the first proposers, and arguably the most famous and accredited, of Evolution and major contributor to the theory, Charles Darwin, was a man of God when he took a naval trip to see the world for furthering his interests in botany. Granted, before he still found it more sensible that God shaped creatures overtime rather than just snapping his fingers and them being the way they are and will always be, but that's irrelevant. The most important moment of this voyage in the history of science was when he and the ship had arrived to the Gal"pagos Islands. Now I won't go into too much detail due to character limits, so I'll just get straight to the juicy stuff. The most iconic mentions about his trip to the islands would be his observation of the finches. Where these finches would stay in a certain part of the islands and never go to any other parts or mingle with the other variety of finches away from these spots. Due to this, their beaks had noticeable differences...such as some having longer and sharper beaks for reaching and then eating insects, while others having shorter and blunter beaks for cracking open and then eating nuts. After these observations, he began to question further into the nature of life forming to mold its environment, rather than the environment molding to life. This would eventually lead into the concept and theory as we know it today. Now, I explain this because it is important to know the origin of how Evolution was discovered primarily, and how the theory itself was birthed. It is also important to know another definition. And this definition is what a "theory" really is within the scientific community. And the definition is as follows: A theory is a scientific explanation that is used to describe a natural occurrence. Scientific theories are the best of the best of explanations science has to offer with describing what happens in the natural world, and is always under constant scrutiny. The Theory of Evolution has been around for nearly two hundred years and has been tested thousands of times throughout this time. Not once has any scientist have been able to find anything to suggest that the Theory of Evolution nor survival of the fittest to be in any way or shape "inaccurate" or "incompetent" in its goal to explanation Evolution. In fact, if anything, the tests and attempts to disprove it has only resulted in more evidences to support it and fill in the holes that Charles Darwin and others had due to simple lack of understanding and lack of modern technology. And before you ask: No, Evolution does not account for the origin of life itself. That is a separate matter involving "Abiogenesis". And no, it also doesn't account for the beginning of the universe, that would be "Big Bang Theory". Now, I think that that is enough of the history and dictionary lessons for now. Another part of my opening argument I shall be providing proofs that science has accumulated over the years to support Evolution and why the Theory of Evolution is necessary to teach in schools. But before I do, I have a series of questions I wish for Pro, and those reading, to ponder on as I do. 1) If you were to describe Evolution in your own words, what would you say? 2) Does it match anywhere close to what I have provided? 3) If not, then why is it different? 4) If yes, then is Evolution nonsensical? 5) What is your ulterior explanation? 6) Why do you prefer your ulterior explanation? 7) Where does your ulterior explanation come from? 8) Is your ulterior explanation backed up with facts and tests, or untestable assertions you just have to take for granted? 9) Which do you prefer: backed up facts or taking someone's word? 10) Do you want your children learning proven facts or untestable assertions? Now, we have gained many ways of showing the works of evolution throughout time, and are still finding them today. This comes from things like the fossil record, finding the incredibly rare evidences of creatures long dead and extinct and able to see how they were in life. The recent cracking of various genomes, including our own, to show how we all (creatures and plants of the earth) are related at a genetic level. A prime example of all creatures being related in some way can be found in our medical practices. When diabetes started to become a problem and both Fredrick Banting and John Macleod received the Nobel prize in 1923 for the discovery of insulin, thanks to the help of Charles Best creating a pancreatic extract which was made from the pancreas of pigs. A majority of insulin today is still made by taking the pancreas from pig carcasses and use the cells within them to make insulin to help human diabetics process sugar. If we didn"t share any similarities or genetic relations to pigs, this would be impossible to do...the first pancreas to make insulin would be a human pancreas, and around this time it would be illegal to desecrate human corpses in such a way. Another example would be the cracking of the human genome in 2003. The project had shown that we shared significant genetic relations with various creatures. Most shocking was that we shared the same gene range as mice, 20,500, and that we shared over 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees, a type of ape. This led us to start cementing our findings that we shared a common, ancient ancestor with other primates. And, through its sequencing of the DNA, it helped us understand diseases including: genotyping of specific viruses to direct appropriate treatment, identification of mutations linked to different forms of cancer; the design of medication and more accurate prediction of their effects; advancement in forensic applied sciences; biofuels and other energy applications, agriculture, animal husbandry, bioprocessing, risk assessment, bioarcheology, anthropology and evolution. Another proposed benefit is the commercial development of genomics research related to DNA based products, a multi-billion dollar industry. A third example would be our earth shattering findings of different species of humans. We are Homo Sapiens, yet we find different, extinct cousins of our species. One example would be the Neanderthal...the cave dwelling humans with the proud eyebrows that lived during and before the Ice Age. And we also have the 3'6' "Hobbits" of Indonesia, although much about them still remains a mystery to this date. And let us not forge the common human ancestor, Homo Erectus, of which there has been traces found in the savannas of Africa. And my fourth, final example shall be that of vaccines and the adaptations of bacteria and viruses. A vaccine is merely a virus with its lethality and effectively greatly diminished and then is introduced into the human system to build up immunity. However, some viruses like the Flu read immunities and change to make vaccine efforts useless. This is why every year we have to have another Flu shot, because the Flu is always evolving. Bacteria on the other hand are organic and alive, while viruses are not. And the only way to stop bacteria is with antibiotics, which uses fungi and weaker bacteria. However, like viruses, once met with a challenge they'll change to overcome it and become effective again. This is also the reason why we have so many different types of antibiotics, because there is a large spectrum of bacteria that is always constantly changing. Now for me to ask something more from Pro. I would like some examples of credible scientists that claim that Evolution has no scientific evidence for support. And I would also like to see actual evidence to any other ulterior explanations of how life is the way that it is today and will be in the future that are credible. ___________________________________________ Credible References for Evolution for Your Reading Pleasure: http://humanorigins.si.edu... http://necsi.edu... http://www.historyofvaccines.org... http://evolutionfaq.com...