Evolution: True? (Continuation)

First I'm going to do some counter-rebuttal. Second, as I have a slightly-higher word count, I'll throw in four more arguments. 1. when Newton developed his theory of motion, it worked 99.99% of the time. But when Einstein came along and gave us his theories of relativity, that explained 100% of observations. That's why today we use Einstein's theories and not Newton's. By a complete biological theory, I mean one that accounts, as much as possible, for the creation of life-forms. Evolution claims to explain the creation of all life forms but one. Other theories, however, account for the creation of ALL life forms. Surely a theory that explains more phenomina is more likely to be correct than 2 theories explaining that same phenomina? [1] 2. I think you misread my argument. I'm saying that NEW amino acids cannot be created through mutation. That is, you can never create new genetic information, although I accept your sources saying that you can change old genetic information. But that genetic information had to come from somewhere![3] 3. While it's true single-celled organisms (not strictly "bacteria") sat around for a few billion years before us. Which only seeks to reinforce my point - for 2 billion years there was no evolution. Why not? Besides, my point here is that because macro-evolution has never been observed, it cannot be any more valid than any of the other theories that have never been observed, and is thus no more likely to be correct. 4. My source that you ask for is human evolution. Apparently we did it within 2 million years [2]. That's a whole lot of changes to happen during this time! Specifically with scales changing to hair, even if I were to accept it's not a big change (which it is), then you still need to change the digestive system at just the same moment so that the cells don't get the materials to build scales but the materials to build hair. What's the chance of both happening at the same time so frequently? Next to none! 5. Perhaps my opponent missed my source for Lucy - here it is again: http://www.straight-talk.net.... Funny you should mention a source that warns at the top that it is inaccurate. Almost all the links are stubs. Perhaps we should look at what the scientists are saying.[4] 6. My opponent believes ocean animals are not subjected to as much pressure as land animals. This only begs the question of why dolphins have evolved since the days of the dinosaurs, yet sharks have not.[5] 7. My opponent asserts mammals appeared to fill a niche. I'd like to challenge my opponent to name the reptilian ancestor of any modern mammal. He can't! Even Darwin was puzzled [6]. Wikipedia has a whole page full of lame attempts by scientists to explain the Cambrian explosion that have all since been discredited [7]. 8. My opponent accepts that the complexity of some animals is irreducible. Therefore how did they evolve to their final state, if they could not breed to mutate their genes to a more complex state? And anyway, who'd WANT to breed with a beetle that has an ugly thing on their back that causes them to explode? 9. Bestiality = love of animals. My opponent makes a good case for why we breed with our own kind and not animals (sexual selection). He does not explain why "such selection pressures result in complimentary traits." 10. Here my opponent decides to change his definition of the second law of thermodynamics. Once it applied to closed systems, now to isolated. The problem is that ISOLATED SYSTEMS DO NOT EXIST [8]. However, as is noted in my source, the second law of thermodynamics should still provide a good approximation of what's going on in a closed system. In no event should exactly the opposite of the law be happening. I should also note that the information provided to an isolated system must be organized information to qualify. The majority scientific consensus is that raw solar energy is not organized information. [12] 11. My opponent does not refute my figure - the odds of the creation of half an eye in just two species are 10^60 against. Look at how many animals have fully formed eyes that are almost the same. The odds against that are staggering. I'm not talking about the fact that they all have eyes, because obviously they all have the need. I'm talking about the fact that they all have evolved fully functioning eyes already. 12. According to the same poll as my opponent cited, only 32% of the general public say they believe in Darwinism (natural evolution over time). The surveys were however, flawed. First, they were telephone surveys with a very high non-response rate. The total sample used to represent hundreds of millions of Americans was about 5000 people. The scientist survey was in a different form so there is the danger of survey-format effects and transferring findings. My point is that they were not statistically very accurate surveys. 13. Evolution explains how new species are created. However, global biodiversity is falling [9]. Surely it follows that at some point there must have been more species created than destroyed, because otherwise we necessitate creationism. My point here is - why the change? 14. My opponent does not believe evolution as a complete theory includes an account of how life began. Perhaps he should read http://en.wikipedia.org... 15. My opponent questions my sources. He ignores those sources of mine which ARE perfectly valid even by his definition. He also ignores the fact that many of my sources have links to more academic papers on the subject. Most were written by college grads. Many of the same arguments have, however, been also written by top professors with multiple patents and many years of practical biological research. A collection of their writings is found here: http://www.icr.org... - I'll try to use them and Wikipedia from now on, you'll find every one of the same arguments made by top professors, believe me that I did bother to search the site and find all of my past arguments made in research papers. Now for 4 all-new points: 1. The fact that our world is so well set up for life generally points to the existence of a divine guiding hand in the creation and formation of life as we know it today. This is counter to the strictly agnostic view of evolution that my opponent appears to have adopted [10]. 2. My opponent hopes I don't know chemistry [11]. In fact, every single cell depends on chirality, yet chirality does not work in cells. Therefore cells cannot have originally come about as a chemical process. 3. If evolution were true, we'd expect to see vestigial organs in the birthing process. As a matter of fact, we don't. [12] 4. There is no known mechanism that allows mutations to happen. Yeah, sure, there are several theories. But each has only begged more questions and there is not yet a complete answer. This is in contrast with opposing theories with fully worked-out mechanisms. The theory of evolution is thus not yet a complete theory. [summary in 12][mostly in 13] As I stated in my very first speech, evolution does not qualify as real science any more than any other theory of where species come from. I'm an atheist and a skeptic, but I refuse to blindly believe in a theory that is unable to back up the many assertions it makes. That's why I'm advocating your CON vote, against an incomplete, unscientific and plain wrong theory. (I've run out of room to list my sources again, see my comment)