Evolution is backed by scientific evidence

First, let me note that I don't dispute the title of this debate. There is evidence for evolution. But evidence is only the raw material of truth, and may often, as in this matter, be interpreted different ways. So let's start with a definition of "evolution" - The hypothesis that all extant life spontaneously descended from "one, or several, original forms" (Darwin's words). This is the ONLY sort of evolution I am interested in debating. I will relentlessly point out the equivocation of using the word evolution to refer to the sort of changes that are observed in human time frames. I am only debating the claims of the creative powers of mutation, not the ability of species to adapt. Let's define "spontaneous" while we're at it: In a science context, spontaneous means 'without outside intervention'. "All by itself", in other words. I do not use spontaneous to mean "quickly". And let me clarify my usage of the word "physics" - I am using 'physics' to encompass all the laws of physical nature: Chemical reactions, electricity, magnetism, etc., as well as mechanics. So. As a practicing design engineer, my problem with evolution is at the lowest level. "What is it made of?" "What powers it", and so on. And the claim is that mutations that can be passed on occur (and the term mutation is horrendously vague and sloppy from a technical point of view), and if a mutation enables the specimen to reproduce more, there will be more offspring and the mutation rapidly spread. And if a mutation hurts the specimen, said mutation will tend to be weeded out. And if the mutation neither helps nor hinders reproduction, it will be passed on anyway. So this seems like it will obviously work in the case of a single mutation, no need to debate that. The 'problem' is that any significant change, like a whole new species, will require many, many sequential, related, mutations. And the 2nd related mutation is equally likely to harm and undo the positive effects of the first mutation. And the more sequential, related mutations you have, the more likely that it all evens out to 'neither positive nor negative'. Unless, that is, the original form was optimized, in which case the likelihood of net harm increases with each successive mutation. And the theory is in fact based on observations of already-highly-optimized life forms. This is why we call mutations 'genetic illness' when they occur in humans - mutations on optimized code will tend to be harmful. I think many people think of Darwin's mechanisms (which are still the basis of modern evolution theory) as a sort of trial and error. But it's not, because there can be no 'error'. There is no bias in physics for life. Quite the opposite - nature tends to move to equilibrium. Nature likes death. You spin a top, the chain reaction of force causes it to spin, and while spinning, maintaining its vertical axis is the lowest energy state. But the top slows, wobbles, and eventually falls over. And then? Then it just lays there. What Darwin proposed is really just a chain reaction. Reproduction is a chain reaction, like an avalanche, or an explosion. But notice how chain reactions tend to be short lived - they run down and they just stop. Now, life is a chain reaction powered by the sun, so it can go on a long time, but everyone should be clear that nature will tend to run the reaction down, not up. Only careful balance of forces can produce a stable chain reaction, especially one like life that is built on exponentially increasing reproductions. A bomb is also an exponentially reproducing chain reaction, as is an avalanche, and you notice how quickly they run out of fuel. Ok, now I'll address W3's point and then see if there's enough space to get to intelligent design. First fossils - Let's all be clear what the "fossil record" actually is: It is the sum total of all the dead lifeforms dug out of the ground so far. The 'record' part of is created by sentient agents. As such there are no transitional species in 'the record'. There are only species that look like both A and B, so someone speculates, SPECULATES, that like-A-like-B is transitional. But I know very little about the fossil record really, so I'll conclude this part with this observation: Even if the collective remains of the dead do show a progression of life, that does not mean said progression is a result of Darwinian evolution, not in the slightest. My own amateur guess is that there have been several creations on earth, not a continuous progression. This readily explains discontinuities like 'the Cambrian explosion'. Microevolutionary experiments - This is the equivocation I referred to. The original theory is that the small scale changes we observe in contemporary life can be extrapolated to explain all of the variety in life. So calling the phenomena upon which the hypothesis is based 'evolution', is nothing more than assuming the conclusion. So, I am not debating variation in reproduction - there is no need to bring it up again in this debate. As to observed speciation, this is also equivocation. When Darwin titled his book "On the Origin of Species" he (by his own words) only meant something on the order of "all the different sorts of animals". He intended no precise definition of species, since he was proposing to explain how they ALL came to be. So again, claiming the sort of speciation done in the lab is the same as evolutionary speciation is to merely assume the conclusion. The sort of speciation seen in the lab could be called 'reproductive failure'. It is a matter of a population losing an ability, so it is no help in defending the notion that mutation could have created whales and squid and eyes and lungs and gills spontaneously. So, #3, "Imperfection". Basically, and again from my perspective as an engineer, I think this line of argument is entirely an argument from ignorance. Every real world design of any complexity will have odd features that seem to make no sense at first. One of the things a rookie engineer quickly learns is not to 'fix' those odd features, because they are here for a reason - a previous engineer needed to avoid a heat issue, or a defect in a vendor's chip, or something like that. So let's take the appendix, an organ that was said to be vestigial when I was younger. But it's recently been found that the appendix incubates good bacteria, upon which our guts rely in extraordinary ways, and can repopulate the gut after severe illness. So calling the appendix useless was clearly an argument from ignorance. And images being 'upside' down being bad design? That's just a tad bizarre actually - that's the nature of lenses, that's the way it has to be. A processor, like the brain, works equally well with top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top images, it just needs to know which it is. So, the fact that evolution proponents can only find a few dubious and just-plain-wrong critiques of life's genius in fact points to design. Life appears to have intent - the various elements of life all appear to "do something". They are not merely shaped by the forces of nature, like river rock, but assembled in vastly complex patterns that accomplish innumerable and related functions, and working together for the function of the specimen, and for the ecosystem as a whole. These forms and functions could not have happened spontaneously, or at least no one has made any progress in demonstrating how even the smallest fraction of them might have occurred. For me, the final coffin in the nail of evolution is the discovery of DNA. DNA is code, like a recipe, and recipes are reductions of existing know-how. Code is written, it's just not the sort of thing that would arise spontaneously. I'm out of space - next time to Francis Crick and LSD.