Does the evolution model offer sufficient explanation for the diversity of life forms

As it appears that I have missed speaking on a couple of points from the previous round, I will start with them. Fossils While my opponent acknowledges that the fossil record is a "snapshot" of what existed in the past, he seems to believe that seeing a record of what existed somehow peoves 1) presumptions about what supposedly existed but there is no fossil record for and 2) how these creatures came to exist. Both 1 and 2 are presumptions, based on the validity of the theory in question. In other words, one must assume evolution is true, in order for the fossil record to prove it is true. Why? Because there is not one single solitary fossil record of a transition of one species changing in to a species that falls into a different classification of higher taxonomy (in other words, show us which exact fish turned into which exact amphibean, or which exact amphibean turned in to which exact mammal, which exact species tuened in to the first bird, etc... and not only which exact species, but show the intermediary steps that took place, now THAT would be undeniablw proof! But there isn't even a single transition that is proposed where one animal turns in to the next aninal through small intermediary changes. What I mean is that all supposed transition involve more than a single evolutionary step, let alone the transition from one higher taxonomy in to another). And, as far as ERV's (or retroviruses), let me post a summation of the problems with ERV's and why they don't prove evolution. "a strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses. They have function, should have been ridden by apoptosis, are different than their ancestral genomes, and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes. With so many problems, a lot of explaining must be done before using ERVs as evidence for evolution." How is a "strong case" made? Because of apostosis (a process of the body that kills dangerous cells). Foreign DNA injected into a cell by a virus would surely trigger the cell to commit suicide (apoptosis). So if tens of thousands of ERVs were really introduced by retroviruses, we should expect apoptosis to have ridden most of them long ago. Also, ERV's are functional; "If ERVs are found to have function, they would be highly unlikely to have come from retroviruses. It"s hard to think that viral DNA could be injected into an ape"s genome and somehow be functional. Evidence has surfaced that they do have function. ... One scientist said about junk DNA, of which ERVs are all part: "The failure to recognize the full implications of this " particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information " may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."[7] ERVs are important in much of the genome. Does that means ERVs absolutely didn"t come from retroviruses? No, but there are certainly some questions evolutionists need to answer" All of the above references are from my source reference found here http://evolutiondismantled.com... (I had to cut much of the article out for brevoty, please read it for details) My conclusion is that IF ERV's are what evolutionary scientists claim them to be, then it would be a strong case (as is stated by my source article), however these scientists are assuming assumptions that have not been priven to be true, just like many other "proofs" of evolution are either based on assumptions, or just plain outright theories that have no backing evidence to support them. For example, when discussing how complex the eye is, evolutionists will cite the theory about how an eye can develop from a very simple form, gradually into the modern complex form it is in today, but they have no supportive evidence to back up this theory of the development of the eye (just like the developmwnt of genders) and yet it is used as "proof" of evolution. My opponent accused me of claiming he stated natural selection creates changes. That is not what I said, but if he had read my quotation from the cited website in round 2, he would have known that I said "sciebtists" make this claim, but then they proceed to contradict that claim, here is the quote I am referring to, please reread round 2 for the entire segment "Because *natural selection* --> can produce amazing adaptations <--, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force" Also, my opponent completely misses the point about my example of dairy cows having limitations. I thought it was clear from what I posted (please reread it, if needs be) that the limitation is not woth the amoubt of milk that is being produced, but rather the fat content of that milk. The difference being that if two cows produce the same amount of milk, the cow that has a higher fat contebt contributes more PROCESSED milk (from the dairy plant processing the raw milk from the cow). Higher fat content means the dairy farm can dilute it more, or whatever pricess they use (in addition to the pasterization process, that is). This truth is also reflective in the sugar beet plant, which I believe I referenced, and because it has no "evolutionary impairative" as my opponent claims a cow does, I notice that my opponent skipped it. Also, to ask they "why" or "how" of a natural process, like limitations in small changes, isn't really relevant, because while natural selection does answer a "why" and "how" it really doesn't support the idea of evolution. On the contrary, evolution hints at mutations aiding animals in overcoming envirenmental variables, while natueal selection is more accurately reflected as a peocess of extinction! Seeing that natueal seldction is only a negative process. Seeing that there is at minimum one more round, leaving my opponent two chances to address the following, I have made it a poibt to pull out the research for my "big guns", in showing that the evolutionary model is not sifficient to explain the diversity of life. These "big guns" being prominent non theistic evolutionary scientists, and what they have said, or better yet, admitted, about evolution. At this point in time, I would like to thank the person who posted in the commebts what was said by a rather prominebt scientists, in one of his speechs\lectures. I hope to be compiling a list of quotes, someday, including who saod what, what their quslifications are and when they said it (be it a speech or a book). However, I will point out for everybody's sake that the quote I am referring to in the comments of this debate is from over 25 years ago. While, this quote was spoken right around the time I graduated from high school, I would like to add that I was taught, in high school, that the theory of evolution was pretty much fact, and despite not being a Christian atthe timw (and having very little religious background) I felt that what I was being taught was very inadequate for explaining why an animal would need to evolve, if it had everything it needed to survive (safety and food), and if it didn't have everything it needed, how would it have survived long enough to have evolved, when it was being taught that evolution is a very slow peocess! It was very much a conundrum that I felt either science needed to develop more details to it's theory, or that it did have them, and that I would likely be taught them in college. While I haven't taken any natueal sciences in college, I do happen to know that my first guess was the right one! The theory needed to develop better details, but I was actually slightly over optimistic, actually science needs to reinvent it's theory, as attested to by very prominent scientists! There was a group of 16 prominent evolutionary biologists, that met in Austria, called the Aletnberg 16, who all had differing ideas about the mechanics of evolution but they all agreed that neo-Darwinism had failed in explaining the development of new life forms (as in sprouting the first wings and other similar body forms). This conference happened not even 10 years ago, in 2008. Also, noted Cambrian paleontologists (as in the Cambrian explosion) James Valentine and Douglas Erwin stated "neither punctuated equilibrium, nor neo-Darwinism (mutations + natural selection) has accounted for the origin of new body plans and that, consequently, biology needs a new theory to explain 'the evolution of novelty' " There has been new theories developed, by non of the, what I call psuedo-scientists of the web (people who post on YouTube about how "dumb" Creationists are, or people who would debate evolution vs. Creation on DDO) have ever brought up any of these new models, because they are stucj with the old outdated model that they were taught was true. Some examples of these new models are; "Self organization" Developed out of a think tank in New Mexica, the Santa Fe Institute, self-organizational theorists claim that biological form often arises spontaneously as a consequence of the laws of nature (what this law is, they don't say). They think "spontaneous self-organizing order, not random genetic mutations, typically provides the ultimate source of new biological forms. However, this goes against what was discovered in epigenetics shows that it is inherently implausible to think that the specificity necessary to coordinate the movemebts and arrangemebts of billions or trillions of cells present in adult animal forms. Because I am running out of space, I will have to waot to conclude other theories like "evo-devo", which I dod already specifically mention but did not detail, or the Hox gene theory, or Neutral\non-adaptive evolution and each of their shortcomings. But be clear about this, that I have named no less than 5 theories that ALL agree Darwinian evolution is too flawed for explain the diversity of life!