evolution

I will first talk about what my opponent's original advocacy was, then move onto his specific points. His advocacy as stated in round 2 is as follows: "I am specifically challenging the process of evolution used to explain the diversification of all life on planet earth. " Ergo if I show that evolution diversifies life I win. I will touch on Darwin's finches first, "My opponent mentions Darwin's finches; this is irrelevant as this is micro evolution. " It is true that this is an example of micro evolution but that doesn't matter a) it is diversification thus proving that evolution promotes diversification and b) if you look to my definitions of micro and macro in round 4, it's easy to see that lots of small changes, micro evolutions, lead to a large change, a macro evolution. My opponent saying "it's macro evolution" is a cop out. He is avoiding an argument and you should vote him down just for this. Even if we ignore all my evidence and assert that the fossil. record is flawed and that the chicken-teeth thing is flawed it doesn't matter. I should still win because I have shown that evolution can diversify life. Moving on, "I ask my opponent to show where I disagreed with the definition presented. " My definition defines evolution by the process by which organisms diversify so here you can either a) accept that definition and you loose because you have accepted a definition which contradicts your advocacy or b) you disagree and thus you must provide a counter definition which you failed to do thus you loose here too. Next, "Next it seems to me curious that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago they seem extremely complex and advanced. " 11 million years is nothing on an evolutionary time scale. The earth is 4 billion years old. 11 million years is a blink of an eye on the evolutionary time frame. And if you look back past the dinosaurs, guess what you see? Organisms getting simpler. I also want to dispute his massivly baised source, Genesispark. Sure it is a source but everything here is baised. But regardless you have given no evidence, you have just copied and pasted quotes. If we are allowed to copy and paste quotes then that takes all the fun out of debate. But to make things fair allow me to copy and paste quotes. Regarding the "gaps" "The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both. This discovery verified the assumption that birds had reptilian ancestors" ~~ . http://anthro.palomar.edu... "Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well-dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series. " ~~ . http://anthro.palomar.edu... ^^These are specific things from the fossil record and here is more . http://anthro.palomar.edu... This source outweighs his due to the fact that this is from the Anthropology Department at Palomar college and not some "Creation Science" website. Moving on, "1st I find it quite perturbing and unscientific that the web site didn't bother posting any pictures, nor peer review. " And Genesispark does? Genesis park is a biased site with not evidence. My site has specific evidence whereas yours has none. " Next I question why the birds would have lost these teeth, as teeth are generally helpful not harmful" Modern day birds have no need for teeth. .. Teeth are used to chew meat and modern day birds are not carnivorous. Overview: My opponent dropped Darwin's finches and I should win on that alone. Also my opponent has done none of his own work regarding, well, anything. He merely copied and pasted quotes from a biased, not peerreviewed, evidence lacking site. Also, my opponent dropped the fruit fly argument by saying I have no source. Here is some evidence: . http://www.jstor.org...