Evolution v. Creation

First:I will be "dividing" these debate in two parts, one of them contending my opponents arguments and the other me establishing my own. I will start with the contentions. VESTIGAL STRUCTURES- They do not existMy opponent refers to vestigial structures in his section titled "VESTIGES AND ATAVISMS" I will be arguing these so called "Vestiges" As defined by my opponent, a vestigial structure is an anatomical structure in which the original function is absent or reduced. Then, a point brought up my most evolutionists is brought up, if creationism was indeed true, why would these exist in organisms today? If there was a creator he/she would not have made these because they are useless. Well the fact of the matter is, these "vestigial structures" do not exist. I would like to put this quote out there: "Just because we do not understand a purpose, does not mean that one does not exist" This can be applied to the so called "vestigial structure" My opponent refers to sightless eyes found underneath the skin of cave fish and marsupial moles. Now, just because us humans do not understand the purpose of these eyes, does not mean they do not serve one. My opponent also brings up this point, and I quote "Why would whales even have the gene to make legs if they were specially created, let alone are sometimes born with them. " This is a perfect example to my quote, "Just because we do not understand a purpose, doesn't not mean that one does not exist" for many decades most scientists pondered this so called vestigial structure as to why whales contain the gene to make legs. Most thought this was useless and a perfect point to the evolution theory simply because we did not understand the purpose, we thought there was not one. Later to find out that whales never had legs. The structures that were once claimed to be vestigial legs, are now known to actually be necessary for reproduction. They anchor these muscles. This structure is only found in the male, and anchor the muscles attached to the penis. -From the book Vestigial Organs are fully functional by Jerry Bergman Ph. D. and George Howe Ph. D on page 71. Examples like these can be found all over the place, as to solutions to my opponent's arguments for goose bumps on humans, and human body hair. I will not go in to detail about all of them because of space requirements, but you can read them for yourself and other so called vestigial organs in the book Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional by Jerry Bergman Ph. D. and George Howe Ph. D. Found here . http://www.angelfire.com...PSUEDOGENESOnce again this has been defined by my opponent above, so I will not go in to detail about what a pseudogene actually is. So, one that note, scientists classify psuedogenes in to three parts; Unitary Pseudogenes, Duplicated Pseudogenes, and Processed Pseudogenes. These are all classified and defined in detail here: . http://www.reasons.org...Now, my opponent like with vestigial structures argues the unimportance of these genes and how they show remnants for ancestors in the past because they are disabled. My opponent falsely claims that these are dysfunctional and include remnants of shared ancestry. Dr. Fazale Rana writes this statement in the book, "Who was Adam? " "scientists have determined that a number of processed pseudogenes generate mRNA transcripts that are translated into functional proteins. In other words, it is incorrect to claim that processed pseudogenes are non functional. From a design/creation standpoint our processed pseudogenes among humans and the great apes reflect common design, not shared ancestry. " Now I have written my rebuttal to my opponent's key points, with the remaining space I would like to write an argument for myself. The Mathematical Impossibility Of EvolutionMathematics from: Dr. Henry Morris found here- . http://www.icr.org...According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. So we will be taking this basic concept, and adding mathematics to it to shows its impossibility. Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)^200, or one chance out of 10^60. The number 10^60, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros. " In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is complex then note that even a one celled animal or plant may have millions of molecular parts. The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10^18 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10^14 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i. e. , 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10^18 seconds, there can, therefore, be 10^18/10^2, or 10^16, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10^14 (10^9) (10^16), or 10^39 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10^60, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10^39 attempts might be successful is only one out of 10^60/10^39, or 10^21. So, by simply mathematical scenarios while giving evolutionists the benefit of the doubt it can be proved that these mutations are highly, highly unlikely if not impossible. SOURCES[1] Vestigial Organs are fully functional by Jerry Bergman Ph. D. and George Howe Ph. D (P.71)[2] . http://www.angelfire.com...[3]http://www.reasons.org...[4] "Who was Adam? " By Dr. Fazale Rana[5] . http://www.icr.org... -By Dr. Henry Morris