World Online Debate Cup-Evolution is true

Thanks to Pro for accepting.1. Transitional FossilsPro gives many examples of transitional fossils. However, the examples are across species, rather than across kinds. (e.g. a primate common ancestor to modern primates and humans).There's also a flaw with the transitional fossil claims. The scientists have compiled a lot of alleged transitional fossils, as you can see here: (http://www.talkorigins.org...) However, when you click on the link, all you get is speculation that it's a transitional fossil because they "look similar", and their order is arbitarily decided." Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing)"Is basically just like"It has these traits, and looks like a Dinosaur, so I'll slap it inside the timeline without any DNA evidence".As the transitional fossil claims are ordered arbitarily because "they look similar", they cannot be relied on.2a. FetusesThe fetus image that pro used as evidence for evolution was actually faked, and the data was made out of thin air. (http://www.nwcreation.net...) It was made by Ernst Hackel, who blamed the artist of the image for the errors, when he himself drew the entire thing. 2b. Similar anatomical featuresThe trilobites are, again, change within species. Change within species are not evidence for evolution, in fact, creationists support microevolution but reject macroevolution.The similar skeletal structures are harder to refute. Let's dissect Pro's argument.P1: If there are similarities between skeletal structures, it can only be explained with evolution.P2: There are similarities between skeletal structures.C: Evolution is true.All I have to do is to show that one of the premises is wrong. So, I will prove that P1 is wrong, so that the conclusion does not follow. Con implies in his argument that evolution is the only explanation for the phenomenon, when there are many. One explanation is that they were all made by the same creator, so they have similarities. If the " it can only be explained with evolution." part of P1 is wrong, then the Conclusion becomes "Evolution may be true".2c. Whale PelvisEvolution states that whales evolved from a land mammal. The shrunken bone could not be a pelvis, because if a land mammal's pelvis gets shrunk through evolution, it would not be able to walk on their legs. This shrinking of the pelvis would also crush reproductive organs, as the tail would have to move a lot for the whale to be able to swim. (http://truthvanguard.com...) 2d. Chemical similarityMy opponent made another logical error, just likein 2b. See my refutation in 2b.Also, the's no evidence that chromosome 2 merged, and neither is there evidence that this happens in nature. 3. Geographic distributionThe common ancestor for darwin's finches is still afinch. The turtles' common ancestor is still a turtle. There are limits for DNA, and the finch is still a finch and still a finch. (http://creationwiki.org...)4. Genetic ChangesAntibiotic resistance is just natural selection, and no new genes grew from random chance. The genes which caused the resistance already existed. (http://creationwiki.org...)Dogs are a subspecies of the domestic wolf (http://creationwiki.org...) no new species have been created.The bug spray is also just like antibiotic resistance, no new genes were created, no genes are changed through mutations.