Evolution is the best theory for the diversity of life.

So the ostrich wings do not count as vestigial structures since their wings do serve multiple purposes like my opponent has already admitted.As your own definition states, the ostrich wing counts as vestigial because it has lost all or most of it original function. Again, they are clearly designed to be wings - "The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity." This is a key quote that you shouldn't be glossing over. That's a big part of the evidence that it is vestigial. Robert Wiedersheim's list of vestigial structures were refuted. All 186 of those structures on the list had functions. Firstly, my quick Google search said that he found only 86, not 186. Secondly, I haven't been given a source for the claim that they were actually all found to be functional, even after searching for a short while myself. But my opponent has only stated a bare assertion. So for now, all we know is that ostriches can't fly yet their wings serve other purposes.No, as I said before, the point of that paragraph was to explain why evolution predicts vestigial structures. I'm presenting evidence of evolution, and so I was making sure to cover all my bases and explain why it is that vestigial organs are evidence. I repeat again: the sole purpose of that paragraph was to explain, in case you didn't know, why vestigial structures are predicted by evolution. As for the second example my opponent gave, they only spent a single sentence discussing Apterocyclus honolulensis. If they want to expand on that point a little, I could address it further.There isn't much more to it. Beetles of that species have perfectly designed wings underneath wing covers that do not open. I'm also very frustrated that the link I keep posting still only redirects to the homepage, so I'm going to try a different page (http://daphne.palomar.edu...) Another example is the beetles from the genus Colophon, which have elytra (wing coverings) that do open, but the wings underneath are useless. I mean, just look at them: (http://www.biodiversityexplorer.org...)This condition is called brachyptery, which is explained here (https://en.wikipedia.org...)A reptile evolving into a bird would have to slowly lose most of its scales and then slowly gain feathers.You keep saying this, but you haven't explained why feathers and scales can't coexist. I would appreciate some links or some kind of information on this matter. Gladly (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu...)This link explains what I'm trying to say quite well. There are a couple of web pages (so you have to click on the green buttons at the bottom to continue to the next page), which isn't ideal, but it has the information I was talking about plus more. For the record, my opponent losses the point as soon as they admit that something is intelligently designed. I "admitted" that man-made machines are intelligently designed... I don't see why that loses me points. I am not sure if I would call these violations. I would say that humans created different groups of machines and some of them resemble each other and some of them look more different than each other. No, they are violations. I get the feeling you do not fully understand exactly what this argument is. The nested hierarchies in evolution occur when one complex trait occurs only within a specific hierarchy of other traits. For example, wings with bird-like complexity only occur in birds and appear nowhere else in the animal kingdom. Note that this applies to complex traits, and not the animals or themselves. Man-made objects defy the nested hierarchies because we can mix and match parts, no matter how complex, from one hierarchical tree to another. In evolutionary theory, this is not possible. If one lineage develops a complex organ, it is far too unlikely that another lineage develop the exact same organ independently, so all complex traits should be found only in clades - that is one ancestor and all of its descendents. As for DNA, my answer is literally the exact same thing as I would say for your last point.It wasn't about DNA, it was about endogenous retroviruses. These viruses insert their DNA into our cells' DNA, where sometimes it sticks without actually triggering any normal kind of viral reaction. As a result, these insertions are passed down through generations in the same spot in or between genes in our DNA. These occur in nested hierarchies, and can be used to confirm phylogenetic trees. I highly recommend you watch the video I linked in the previous round regarding ERVs. This video explains it at a snail's pace, and hopefully can help you understand exactly what my argument is. If not, let it be on record for the voters that I'm doing my best ().My opponent seems to forget both of us interpret the evidence differently. The nested tress can either show common ancestry or intelligent design depending on what worldview we bring to the table. So we both have opinions based on the same evidence.My quote had a very specific meaning. I was saying that your objection to me saying that a pegasus could exist given creationism is based on your personal opinion and not in the "theory" of creationism itself. In contrast, evolution positively says that they could not exist, because a mammal with avian wings would violate the nested hierarchy that exists and potentially falsify evolution, or at least a part of it. The problem is that macroevolution has never been proven.In science things aren't proven. Only disproven. It's worth noting that despite over a century of scrutiny, evolution has not been disproven. A big part of all of science is justified inferences. Based on the established age of the Earth and the mechanisms known to act on living things, as well as the fossil record and evidence in our DNA (such as the fact that our Chromosome 2 is largely identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes when fused, leading to the conclusion that a fusion event happened in our chromosomes between our divergence from chimps and the rise of modern humans, (http://www.evolutionpages.com...)). Just like you make plenty of justified inferences based on evidence in your everyday life, science is allowed to as well. Of course, the difference is that science's inferences are always subjected to much harsher scrutiny, yet still manage to survive. My opponent thinks that microevolution is the same process as macroevolution. I was saying that they are based on the same processes, and I stand by what I said. According to UC Berkeley: "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change..."(http://evolution.berkeley.edu...)