The theory of Evolution is well supported by science

I am a bit disappointed; I was hoping to have an opponent that does NOT believe in evolution, but I will do my best nonetheless. My opponent seems to agree with the fact that evolution is supported by science and simply questions whether Internet is a reliable source, which is not really the point of this debate.My opponent also made that the evidence were 'questionable and couldn't objectively point directly to Evolution being true', but science does not deal in objective truths, it deals in theories and hypotheses.The rest of this round is a copy paste from one of my previous debate: 1) Evidence from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA): Since I am not a geneticist, this will be pretty basic (and pretty much a bunch of paraphrases from sources I will list below). I believe it will also help everyone understand it better. Let's start with an introduction to DNA. Our DNA is what defines us. It uses four basic building blocks (named A, T, C and G) in order to code our entire body. Humans have approximately 25000 genes in their DNA, each of which controls a specific aspect of our body (eye color, diseases, height, etc.). We share about 99,9% of our DNA with each other, leaving our differences in the remaining 0,1%. (http://eveloce.scienceblog.com......) A couple of years back, scientists started the Human Genome Project, with which they wanted to sequence all of our DNA (this has now been completed). With the sequence now well known, scientists began to sequence the DNA of other mammals such as lions, elephants and pigs and they realized that not only do they also have 25000 genes, but most of these genes are identical to ours. Many primates are extremely similar to us, genetically speaking (http://humanorigins.si.edu......) (http://en.wikipedia.org......) Another impressive fact is the ability for human genes to be passed to other animals. Fruit flies, for example, can accept some human genes in order to create weird (though viable) mutations. While this may not be a direct proof of evolution, it is exactly what you would expect if every life form shared a common ancestor. Since DNA is an extremely complicated subject, I will leave at that for now. 2) Evidence from the fossil record: This is much easier to grasp then DNA so I will spend more time on it. Let's begin with the evolution of humans: Australopithecus afarensis lived around 3 million years ago. It's anatomy suggests that it is ancestral to modern humans (http://humanorigins.si.edu......) Homo habilis lived around 2 million years ago and is considered the next step in the evolution of humans (http://humanorigins.si.edu......) Homo ergaster (which is sometimes considered part of homo erectus) is the next species in our evolutionary chain. It lived less than 2 million years ago and shared many feature with us (http://australianmuseum.net.au......) Homo heidelbergensis lived less than 1 million years ago and was very similar to homo erectus except for the fact that he had a larger brain (http://anthro.palomar.edu......) Homo sapiens is virtually identical to us and therefore is considered part of the same species (basically, we are homo sapiens). They have been around for about 200 000 years (http://humanorigins.si.edu......) Let's explore the evolution from sea to land: This aspect of evolution is extremely important; not only does it contain one of the most convincing “transitional fossil”, but it also allowed us to make an accurate prediction. Given what we knew about evolution back in 2000, scientists began to search for the fossil of an animal, around 350 million years old, which would indicate the transition from sea to land. After many failed attempt, they finally found what they were looking for in 2004 (in Canada); Tiktaalik. This animal is a perfect transitional fossil; it retains many characteristics of fish AND has many features that are specific to tetrapods. (http://www.sciencedaily.com......)(http://en.wikipedia.org......)(https://www.youtube.com......)If my opponent wishes, I can present the evolution of birds in the next round, or perhaps the evolution of cats and dogs, or maybe he would prefer the evolution of mammals. Take your pick. Personally, the aspect of the fossil record that I find the most convincing (and the primary reason why I accept evolution as true) is the absence of currently living species in old layers; for example, we never found the fossil of a dog that was 100 million years nor have we ever found “rabbits in the Precambrian”. (http://en.wikipedia.org......) In other words, the fact that evolution is so easily falsifiable and yet has NOT been falsified is pretty convincing to me (although it obviously is not sufficient on its own to be considered scientific). I await my opponent's answer!