The Theory of Evolution is a lie and We did not come from monkeys.

"doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted?" Evolution is adaptation. First, I must make corrections in my opponent's information. The easiest one to explain is , quote, "Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes." What my opponent doesn't realize is that evolution makes no claims to where we came from, but how we adapted to our environment biologically (and that's why even the Pope has claimed that evolution is compatible with Catholicism, adding only that God's hand must have guided it.) The problems that evolution creates for Intelligent Design believers are many, but this isn't a valid problem. http://www.talkorigins.org... Next, evolution theory in no way says we are descendents of monkeys. This shows an obvious unfamiliarity with the topic of evolution on the part of my opponent. Human beings are a descendents of hominids. Simple and brief explanation of how we are not monkey descendants, but all branched out of the Family Hominidae: Taxonomy refers to classification of living organisms. They are classified into the following categories: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Let's categorize humans and monkeys (we'll do the specific monkey Bonobo for our purposes http://en.wikipedia.org...) and hominids (we'll do Sahelanthropus tchadensis, (http://en.wikipedia.org...) to present their differences. Human Taxonomy: Doman: Eukaryota, Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Homo, Species: sapien Bonobo Taxonomy: Doman: Eukaryota, Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Pan, Species: paniscus Sahelanthropus tchadensis Taxonomy: Doman: Eukaryota, Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Sahelanthropus, Species: tchadensis Now that I have presented to my opponent where the three split off (at Genus), we can start our actual argument here: Evolution is based on three principles: 1. As organisms reproduce, more offspring will be formed than can survive. This causes competition for sources of energy and habitat. Only the fittest organisms will survive. 2. During cell division, minute changes will be introduced in the offspring. Such mutations will generate genetic diversity among the offspring. 3. The result of these two processes, competition and diversity, is a selection pressure that will favour certain populations that are best qualified to survive. Over time, this will result in notable changes of a species. My opponent asked for me to give him examples of good mutations. Positive mutations is sort of a misnomer. It all depends on the environment and the selection pressure that is exerted on the organism; it is "relative". Here is a list of mutations, their positives and negatives (as most things on earth): 1. Hyper mobility - double jointed (Neg. arthritis) 2. Sickle cell anemia- helps protect against maleria (Neg. vein blockage) 3. Skin Color - helps protect against certain sun rays in area (Neg. Doesnt apply to areas outside of adapted environment) 4. muscle density mutations - some good at running short distances very fast and some good at running medium, some good at running long (Neg. pertains to adapted environment) So again, mutations depend on environment. Some adaptations dont work in other areas (like a desert mutation being applied to the jungle). Here is the quick break down about why the eye can not be a perfect god creation: "Evolution also posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. The human eye, for example, is the result of a long and complex pathway that goes back hundreds of millions of years. Initially a simple eyespot with a handful of light sensitive cells that provided information to the organism about an important source of the light; it developed into a recessed eyespot, where a small surface indentation filled with light-sensitive cells provided additional data on the direction of light; then into a deep recession eyespot, where additional cells at greater depth provide more accurate information about the environment; then into a pinhole camera eye that is able to focus an image on the back of a deeply-recessed layer of light-sensitive cells; then into a pinhole lens eye that is able to focus the image; then into a complex eye found in such modern mammals as humans. The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and back-wards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses- which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?" (Quote Dr. Michael Shermer) As for "facts", what facts do you wish for? Do you want fossil evidence? Because I can show you the fossils. Do you want genetic evidence? For I can show you that as well. Do you want transitional phases? I have plenty of those. I need to know exactly what kind of evidence my opponent is asking for. I will gladly show him next round all of the evidence he asks for. My question for my opponent is as follows: Show me, fossil, genetic, and anti-transitional evidence in the support of intelligent design. You can add any other evidence you wish, and I will reply to it. Evolution preformed by bacteria: "It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant." (http://www.accessexcellence.org...) Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck experimented on the bacteria to assess how this happened, and eventually came to the conclusion that bacteria does mutate (and at a quick rate at that because of short life spans http://www.bacteriamuseum.org...). Now from science,to argue philosophy on my opponent. My opponent made a philosophical claim on atheists, so I wish to show him his fallacies now: 1. "Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence." Ad hominem attack right there. You have no evidence presented on your character claim against the atheists(there is an i after e in atheist) Also commit Poisoning the Well. 2. "because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you." Ad hominem 3. "I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys" Ad hominem, Personal attack. 4. "Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none." Begging the question 5. "How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? The fact is, evolution takes faith." Ad hominem, Begging the Question Unfortunate character limit. -V