Evolution is the best theory for the diversity of life.

I will quote my opponent and then respond to what he wrote underneath of it. "And obviously I never claimed that this fact alone proved evolution because, as I said, science doesn't prove things." I think my opponent and I agree on the first point. The complexity of the wings do not prove evolution. Though, we still disagree on the fact about whether the wings count as vestigial or not. However, I will extend my previous arguments and leave it at that. "Anyway, I still await a list of the functions attributed to all of these organs that supposedly were uncovered. Judging by the rhetoric of your source and the fact that they provided no citations, I'm suspicious of the accuracy. I have no doubt many and maybe most of the organs have been assigned functions, but just a cursory glance at some of the organs listed on the Wikipedia page showed that several of the ones I chose at random still don't have a well-established function." The second source I showed that functions were found for all of the 186 structures. That said, the source only mentions a few structures. We would probably have to buy Wiedersheim's original book in order to see the full list. "Obviously we're using different definitions of vestigial. At any rate, that is quite a bold claim to make, saying that all vestigial organs will eventually have a function assigned to them." Well, considering that functions have been found for most of the structures we thought were vestigial, I don't think the claim is so bold to make. "In fact, the excerpt you gave yourself gives several reasons for the evolution of brachyptery and also acknowledges that many of the cases of brachyptery are totally vestigial in the sense that they have no function. I suspect that at least one of these above beetles fit that mould." The except I gave listed several functions. They are only vestigial in the sense that they do not work as a means for flying. "I finally found where you're misunderstanding this. First off, there's nothing in evolution that says one trait has to completely or even mostly disappear before new traits can evolve. As such, birds didn't evolve from just 'common reptiles,' with only scales, the reptiles that birds evolved from would have had feathers before they could fly." No, you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the scales have to completely disappear. The problem is that enough of the scales disappear so that the creature could no longer live in the water. Not all of them have to disappear though. And the feathers also would not have been fully formed. So the creature would die off easliy. "It's already well-established that many theropod dinosaurs had feathers or proto-feathers, including velociraptors (http://science.sciencemag.org......), Sinosauropteryx (http://news.nationalgeographic.com......), and Archaeopteryx (which I'll even cite a creationist source for, since Mr. Gish at least got the part about its feathers right, while not much else on this page) (https://www.icr.org......)." No, it has been established that a bird was found. Your creationist source says that "It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like." Your first and second sources seem unsure. It seems that there is still a lot of debate on the subject. "The point of this piece of evidence wasn't necessarily that Tiktaalik is the one and only transitional animal. No, as the heading suggested, it was that scientists predicted that they'd find an animal morphologically between fish and tetrapods on this particular island, and that they then went and found it where they expected." Ah okay. I thought you were still focusing on transitional forms when I wrote that. "It was the predictive power of the theory, because predictive power is one of the most important aspects of a scientific theory (and part of the reason that creationism doesn't qualify)." No, we just don't disagree on as much as you thought we did. Creationism does not take issue with some of the things evolution predicts. Like I told you earlier, the only issue is with macroevolution (including transitional forms) and common descent. "As I explained before, the analogy you gave helps to explain my piece of evidence. It showed that systems that are subject to intelligent design are not constrained by nested hierarchies like evolution is. Here's a video explaining why since I'm running out of characters and apparently haven't been able to articulate myself in a way that will get you to understand." Again, I disagree with you. The clear, "organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought. For instance, man-made vehicles are obviously intelligently designed, and yet we can organize them into a clear tree structure, with groups inside groups. For instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps, etc." I know that you tried to refute what I said by bringing up a bike with an engine on it (or something like that), but that isn't a violation of the nested tree. "All you'd have to do to blow a huge whole in evolution would be to find a couple examples of violations of these nested hierarchies." What about the eye that an octopus has? For instance, "the octopus has an eye much like a human, but they are so distantly related according to evolutionists that they must say this type of eye evolved twice independently" (http://www.christcreated.com...). "This is because intelligent designers can mix and match parts from different machines to produce more machines, whereas evolution only builds on what already exists in an animal's ancestors, and adds to it. " Well, the intelligent design theory would only state that things were created in the beginning and then the creation builds off itself. "Descent with modification. Evolution only builds on what already exists and can't borrow from neighboring branches like intelligent designers can." Remember the octopus eye? Evolutionists literally have to say that the eye evolved twice independently. "You didn't at all address my point about the hierarchies in ERVs, and instead construed it to be something about junk DNA that I didn't mention." Yours points were kind of confusing when you moved away from your original rule which was to formulate arguments in numbered lists or to use bullet points. I got a little mixed up myself and was trying to figure out what you were tying to argue half the time. "As far as your last paragraph, all I can say as that it seems that your God went to great lengths to make it look like we evolved." Saying that something looks similar is one thing. To say that the evidence of the chromosome 2 proves macroevolution is just not fair/true. "Since this is my last round, I thank you for the civil debate and wish you well." Same to you! It was a descent debate.