Evolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical Creationism

I thank Con for this debate. I shall now present my case. I apologize for the brevity of my response and my overreliance on quotes; I am a bit rushed.THE TOPICPlease note that this topic specifically asks what is more substantiated by science. Therefore, science should be used to justify all arguments.Also note that this is not necessarily a debate about Young Earth Creationism itself, but rather about the explanation for the development of life. Creationism holds that the Earth is just 10,000 years old, and that all life came into being when God created each organism. I will specifically be challenging the notion that life did note evolve, but rather was created in its present state by an act of God.COMMON DESCENT"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor." [1]Similar Biochemistry"All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADPH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria and archaea to animals and plants. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent. An example would be Cytochrome c which most organisms actually share. A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins." [1]Vestigial Structures"Some organisms have structures or organs that seem to serve no useful function. For example, humans have a tailbone at the end of the spine that is of no apparent use. Some snakes have tiny pelvic bones and limb bones, and some cave-dwelling salamanders have eyes even though members of the species are completely blind. Such seemingly functionless parts are called vestigial organs or structures. Vestigial organs are often homologous to organs that are useful in other species. The vestigial tailbone in humans is homologous to the functional tail of other primates. Thus vestigial structures can be viewed as evidence for evolution: organisms having vestigial structures probably share a common ancestry with organisms in with organisms in which the homologous structure is functional." [2, 3]Homologous Structures"If a bat, a human, an alligator, and a penguin all evolved from a common ancestor, then they should share common anatomical traits. In fact, they do. Compare the forelimbs of the human, the bat, the penguin, and the alligator. Find the humerus, radius, ulna, and carpals in each forelimb. Though the limbs look strikingly different on the outside and though they vary in function, they are very similar in skeletal structure. More significantly, they are derived from the same structures in the embryo. Structures that are embryologically similar, but have different functions, are called homologous structures. Though these animals look different, a comparison of homologous structures indicates that they are quite similar. This suggests that these animals evolved from a common ancestor." [2]CURRENT EVOLUTIONEvolution is happening before our very eyes. Bacteria and viruses are some great examples of this. "Lenski’s team thawed E. coli taken from the LTEE at 41 different time points during the past 25 years and cultured the samples from different generations together in varied combinations with the most current generations. They evaluated fitness based on how fast the bacteria grew and found that even between 40,000 and 50,000 generations, there was a 3 percent increase in mean fitness. The scientists generated a model, which predicted that even if the experiment continued for 2.5 billion years, there would not be an upper bound to fitness." [4]"To show that the mussel has evolved, Freeman and Byers needed evidence that the mussel's response had changed over time--but unfortunately, no one was measuring the blue mussel's predator response 15 years ago, before the arrival of the Asian shore crab. Freeman and Byers, however, were able to take advantage of a quirk in the ranges of these two animals: the blue mussel lives up and down the coast of New England (including all of Maine), but the Asian shore crab has not yet ventured into Northern Maine. That means that Northern Maine mussels have never been exposed to the Asian shore crab--and have not experienced any natural selection that might cause them to respond to this predator in particular. Those northern mussels, then, serve as an indication of what all blue mussels were probably like 15 years ago, before the invasion...only southern mussels built thicker shells in response to the Asian shore crab! As predicted, the northern mussels (the "pre-invader" population) developed no defenses against the exotic predator." [5]PREEMPTIVE ARGUMENTSEvolution Violates Thermodynamics"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder." [6]No Transitional Fossils"A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves. To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false." [6] In fact, there are myriad examples of such fossils in existence. [7]Evolution = Random Chance"There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating." [6]SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...3 - https://www.boundless.com...4 - http://www.the-scientist.com...5 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...6 - http://www.talkorigins.org...7 - http://www.talkorigins.org...