Evolution is better supported by evidence than creationism.

IntroMy opponent immediately asserts that my attempt to disprove evolutions falls flat. I argue that this unwarranted fallacy of assertion shows that Pro is resorting to weak statements to make his case. Whether the summation of my arguments are sound or not rests within the minds of the voters.My analogy of the creation of the universe to that of the creation of computers is exactly that, an analogy. I admitted that my analogy only worked if there truly is a Creator; the point was to express the rationality behind involving a Creator to creation.My opponent also comments on how my analogy to the Ptolemaic model of the universe is not a fair comparison to the Darwinian model because of increased knowledge and peer-reviewd science. The point of my analogy was to demonstrate the importance of scientists to never cling to assert only one theory and reject all others, because there is always the possibility of being wrong, which has been demonstrably shown in the past. I also argue that it is quite arrogant of modern scientists to dismiss the many failed assumptions of past scientists- again, clinging to one theory is not an intellectualy valid concept.RebuttalsNew InformationMy opponent argues that gene duplication is an adequate example for new information in mutations. However, this is not a valid claim. What is actually taking place is duplication-degeneration-complementation. "DDC explains the preservation of duplicate genes by a neutral mechanism in which each paralogue [duplicated gene] accumulates loss-of-function mutations (degeneration) that are complemented by the other copy." (1)To illustrate an example: Imagine a tv that has both picture and sound. At some point, the tv loses the ability to produce sound, so the consumer goes out and buys another tv. After some point, this tv loses the ability to show pictures. When putting these two televisions next to each other, they can, together, show picture and sound.Gene duplication is not adding new functions, it is reproducing functions of the original that were lost over time. While my opponent will use his next round to find another method of gaining information, he must realize that if new information and functions are processes that happen all the time, then this could be validated by finding numerous transitional forms in the fossil record. Which leads us to the next rebuttal:Transitional FormsPro: "We have seen many transitional forms in the fossil record".No. Scientists have observed a handful of disputable ones that never acquire a scientific concensus for actually being a transitional form.Achaeopteryx: It's a bird. It's a perching bird. Also, birds have been found dated before the archaeopteryx, so it cannot be it's own grandfather. (2)Tiktaalik: Footprints were found that predated tiktaalic that were purely amphibian. Again, tikaalik cannot be it's own grandfather. (3)Eupodophis: This fossil appears in the record earlier than legless snakes, so again, it cannot be it's own grandfather. Legless snakes just show that there was a loss of information to snakes with legs and snakes without. (4)My opponent gave a list to even more disputed tranistional forms, and I do not feel the need to disprove every one of them, because my opponent has missed the point. There should be a very numerous amount of transitional forms, however, we have a very limited amount of disputable ones. National Geographic: "Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost." (5)It's much more easier, and so much more likely, to believe that there is a reason we only find one frame for each creature- they were created in that "frame." However, the evolutionist believes in a missing 999 frames. This is faith. This is believing in something despite the evidence showing otherwise. But the Creationist need not invoke faith in this issue. We see one "frame". This validates our claim while the evolutionist is disregarding the overwhelming evidence.Pro (in regards to present day transitional forms): "This is a logical fallacy, there is no way to know what species today are "transitional" as we have no idea what they would be transitioning to."False. We can look in the past to see what animals have evolved into others (like fish to amphibians). We should still be seeing half fish and half amphibian creatures. My opponent will argue that evolution is completely random, but he needs to realize that it was not just one creature that evovled over time into a new creature- it was groups of creatures at a time. If they all randomly evolved together into the same forms, we should still be seeing this process today.Pro: "As I said before, these vestigial structures do have some functionality left, which is why they still exist. However, they are clearly not "designed" to serve the function they currently have. Also, evolution does not necessarily always mean the increase of information."This is exactly my point. The majority of "Evolution" is a decrease of information over time. Also, "junk DNA" is not an argument for evolution. It shows that mutations take away information, so we should be seeing DNA that has junk parts to it. It is quite ironic that my opponent is arguing that both the increase and decrease of information proves evolution. No, anything that shows a lost of information just increases my case and hurts evolutionary theory.Pro: "An inefficiency doesn't suggest an impossibility. This is why it often takes millions of years for significant changes."Being theoretically possible is highly dissimilar to being realistically probable. If millions of years have passed, and as 99 percent of evolution is a decrease of information, we should not be seeing the ammount of evolved life we see today.Noahs' Flood RebuttalsI agree with my opponent that the fossils are on the mountains because of fault lines causing high mountains. This event was caused by the global flood. And yes, the earth was flat at one point, so there is enough water to cover the earth. And as already provided by the link in my previous argument (6), the polystrate fossils (trees) do not have roots with them, meaning they were dislodged from their normal position and moved around. And we see these fossils all around the world, not something volcanic activity alone could explain. I agree that the flood wouldn't have created new sediment, but disagree that it would have created only a single unique layer. (I don't know if this gif will work, but it's a very basic image of how the flood would move layers of the earth)" A large portion of the geologic record is now recognized to be composed of turbidites, series of individual layers that formed together in cycles in fast-flowing water." (7) ConclusionHonestly, my strongest argument against Darwinian Evolution is the lack of transitional fossils. My opponent may want to try to argue the possibility of beneficial mutations, but if that is true, then we would see many transitional fossils. There are only a handful of disputed ones, or a lack of 999 frames of missing links. I argue that they are not there, and so my opponent must subsistute the lack of evidence for faith to justify his beliefs. It is no different than religion, but Creationism is a more justified stance on the world as we can observe it today.I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.(1) http://www.answersingenesis.org...(2) http://creation.com...(3) http://creation.com...(4) http://creation.com...(5) http://creation.com...(6) http://www.earthage.org...(7) http://www.rae.org...