Creationism (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Rapid ChangeMy opponent claims that researchers relocated guppies in a new environment, and that had allocated for rapid change within a short amount of time. He had then went on to explain how it can provide evidence for Creation and evidence against Evolution since the change was exponentially faster than said by the fossil record.However, it is also important to note that these researchers artificially relocated guppies. The chance of this happening by nature would be very rare, considering guppies can not jump out of a waterfall and relocate.GeneticsI would like to note that my opponent seems to be contradicting themselves. They demon started the theory of organisms changing that they subscribe to as an Orchard. However, such change would not be possible without a change in genetics. The rapid change as mentioned earlier, does provide insight in how my opponent is contradicting themselves.Now onto disproving this idea...I would first like to note that the first study listed is very old (published in the year 1979.) Future studies my indicate otherwise. My opponent also does not suggest any concrete evidence for harmful mutations outweighing beneficial mutations. Rather, they use charts and graphics that suggest so, but have no backing to them. A study by Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell from the University of Arizona has said otherwise. "Most previous estimates of the human mutation rate have utilized one of three approaches. Two of these approaches rely on pheno-typic differences associated with diseases and the third approach relies on direct comparison of DNA sequences without function. These phenotypic and molecular methods are fundamentally different and rely on different assumptions." (Quote from the study)This study has used better and more accurate estimates of finding the human mutation rate. Previous mutations have relied on differences correlated with diseases, and directly comparing DNA without function. The researchers estimate that 3/175 mutations are harmful; the mast majority of mutations are in fact neutral. An experiment with the bacteria E. Coli also found that 1/150 rising mutations are beneficial, and 1/10 functional mutations are beneficial. Furthermore, harmful mutations usually last a lot shorter than beneficial mutations. Processes such as (but not limited to) natural selection come into play here when weeding out harmful mutations. Futhermore, the science of epigenetics may provide more evidence for rapid change, and could possibly prove more rapid change within shorter amounts of time. FossilsWhile 'living fossils' may seem contradicting towards evolution, this does not imply Evolution is false. In a relatively unchanging environment, organisms would likely not change by a good amount. Many environments on Earth, especially in the ocean, have remained relatively unchanged. Furthermore, living fossils are not inheretly subject to no change what so ever despite common misconceptions. A living fossil may seem relatively unchanged, but there might be many micro-evolutionary changes that have occured. Now onto dinosaur blood, red blood cells were indeed found in a dinosaur bone as proclaimed by my opponent. This doesn't neccessarily prove a young-earth none the less. According to research done on this, Iron had helped preserve the blood vessels for so long. "he researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said. "The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said. The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron." Since I am running low on time, I will refute my opponents' argument on design in the next round. I apologize for my short arguments, as I have had minimal time to prepare my arguments.