Evolution is based on a Lie.

Thanks Pro for this debate.I reject this resolution, that evolution is based on a lie, because evolution is based on sound fact.Also, there were no definitions provided by the instigator in round 1, so to keep us on a reasonable track, I'll supply definitions.*Definitions*evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...based - have as the foundation for (something).http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...lie - an intentionally false statement.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...*The Resolution Is Not True*I'll be brief, but the resolution is not true, and here's why:1. genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on than genetic characteristics that don't allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce.http://evolution.berkeley.edu...2. speciation has been directly observed in hawthorn-->apple maggot flyhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3. human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is definitive evidence that humans descended from apes.http://genome.cshlp.org...4. early hominid fossils explain our bipedal-ism and ancestryhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Unfortunately, it seems, given Pro's hostility towards evolution, these evidences may all be ignored by Pro, but they should indicate to people who wish to actually have a reasonable discussion about evolution that evolution is NOT based on a lie.*Pro's Issues With Evolution*Pro claims:"Evolution is a Lie because they used an ADULT in their Model...Everyone knows life on Earth did not form as adults of each species! Invariably then they would have formed as newborn of each species!"My response:Where to start?Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth.Evolution may lead to the idea that life on earth formed from inorganic substances, but the definition of evolution DOES NOT include the origin of life on earth; abiogenesis does, and abiogenesis is not the topic at hand.Also, Pro just asserts that the evolution model includes life originating as adults...I have no idea where Pro got that idea from, and I'm not sure I understand what Pro means.Pro could you explain yourself and indicate some source that has evolution claiming adult origins?Pro continues:"no possibility that a Newborn COULD SURVIVE much less to ADULTHOOD without an Adult to feed, water and protect them in a harsh environment .... so How did life begin?"My response:Do bacteria need to be watered by an external agent? Also, evolution is not in the business of how life began, rather it's an explanation of existing life's biodiversity.Many organisms, like bacteria and plants, don't need an adult to take care of them, and in some cases of bacteria, they don't even need other bacteria to reproduce, as they can self reproduce by binary fission.Pro keeps stabbing:"There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED as adults of each species? So SCIENCE'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS BASED ON INACCURATE DATA ..... OR AS I WOULD CALL IT .... A LIE!!!!!"My response:Evolution does NOT claim anything about the origins of life, though they may be implicated by it, nor does it claim that life formed as adults of each species...again Pro's claim is largely unclear, and it doesn't really make much sense.Pro adds:"There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED from Newborns of each species, because they would NOT have survived to adulthood"My response:Evolution is not about how life formed, it's about how life diversifies/has diversified, and organisms survive to adulthood by adapting to and avoiding constraints.Not all organisms need an adult to survive to adulthood.Pro asserts:"ONLY Earths creation by a being capable of creating life AS adults could plausibly accomplish Life's Beginnings"My response:This has nothing to do with evolution, again evolution is just the diversification of life, not the origin of it.However, i would like to know, what proof do you have of this bald assertion Pro?Pro again asserts:"I say God created life on Earth, because Science has no viable or feasible explanation that can seriously be considered to the alternative! But you can certainly try. I figure if the greatest minds of science couldn't do it and HAD to use an adult model .... KNOWING life doesn't FORM as ADULTS. Neither can you?"My response:Pro, did you want to actually want to debate abiogenesis?While I would be happy to do this, in another debate, the origin of life is not part of evolution directly, thus not part of this debate...none of your problems with evolution have to do with evolution.Ok, so on to Pro.