God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

As stated, this post is for outlining my argument; and I will rebutt my oponents counter argument in the final round. Evolution, or more accurately the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, essentially explains that from a universal common ancestor and through the physical mechanisms of reproduction, genetic mutations and the processes of gene flow, natural selection and genetic drift can be used to explain the nature of the planet. [1] I will start to summarise the evidence of this. - The Nested Hierarchy - When arranging life objectively by it's properties, you find a pattern that develops when viewing the physical or "Morphological" differences between species. Essentially, a nested hierarchy of properties are found: A tree. [2] You find that for a specific feature, all species that have that feature also have a common set of other features. Animals that have a placenta, have a tetropod skeleton, nipples, are warm blooded, have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symmetric and have eukaryote cells.[3] Such patterns build up consistently to provide sets of features within features: A tree, with no violations: No mixing and matching of different sets, or "clades"; no birds with nipples, no fish with placenta, and no mammals that do not have bilateral symmetry. This is evidence of descent with modification.[4] Interpreting the tree of life as a "family" tree, implying ancestry is validated by chronology: As you go back in time the fossils will general transition down through the tree progressing to simpler and more common forms. And validated by geography: Fossils relating primarily to a geographically located species should appear in that particular location. Thus far there are a total of 250,000 fossil species discovered (1984) [5], all matching the tree, with a total recorded by Wikipedia of 175 significant transitional forms [6] for almost all branches of life showing the progression of most lineages but not for all species. All of which are consistent with Common Descent. Fossilisation itself requires specific conditions, which are not common[7]; while by no means a complete list of all species that have ever lived, there are significant numbers of both transitional and normal fossils that are more than enough to provide significant evidence for evolution. However, it is not by any means the only proof that is present, merely one part of a cohesive whole that all points to common descent via evolution. -Cytochrome C " More specifically, upon the discovery of DNA, it was possible to analyse the genetic code to determine the genetic differences. A good example is Cytochrome C, which is a protein that is the same in all species. Some genetic mutations can occur that do not change the coded protein due to how base-pairs code for amino acids work. As a result if common descent were true, these mutations will build up proportionally to the distance inferred from the tree of life. The results of this analysis show that the genetic differences between Cytochrome C on different organisms matches exactly what is predicted by common descent. A number of other genetic markers, such as Endogenous Retro Viruses, and detailed genetic analysis of the human chromosome further support this. [8] -Other demonstrations - On top of this, there are many other aspects, that I must only summarise due to word limitations such as atavisms (human tails or whale legs), Vestigiality; and strange quirks of nature such as the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe that goes from it"s brain, down to it"s heart and back up again; a trait shared in all mammals that offers still more evidence of descent with modification. [8] - Mutations, Natural Selection and Evolution " To start of with, the genetic basis of Evolution: mutations demonstrate the process, with numerous different types of changes that can occur on the DNA to change, duplicate or remove DNA information. [9] Having such an ability to duplicate, remove and change DNA, it becomes a triviality to explain how the DNA can grow from something simple to something more complex (with more data) when you factor in evolutionary processes. The way evolution works, is by random mutations occurring; and a creature with these mutation either being more or less successful than its competitors. This allows the random mutation to spread over generations; as those that possess such a mutation is at an advantage. While some elements of evolution are random (such as genetic drift), this particular aspect is very much not.[10] Such a process can and has been experimentally verified with the E-Coli experiments, and evolving Algae to become multi-cellular [11][12] - Evolutionary Conclusion " As a result of the evidence above, we show a clear pattern of evidence providing massive amounts of support for common descent. Together with experimental evidence demonstrating evolution, and our analysis of the genetic and statistical processes at work, combined with observed and analysed types of mutations and genetics, it is clear that species are changing and have changed in the past. As we have thus far found no mechanism or process that will stop mutations from accumulating, it is clear that the species will continue to change, adapt, vary and accumulate changes until a collection of small changes yield a massive change in long lost descendants compared to an originating ancestor. This genetic evidence demonstrates significant macro evolution is not only possible, but there is significant and extensive evidence that shows that it is the process explains the biodiversity of all life with no compelling evidence otherwise. As such, the results are clearly conclusive that evolution is not a flawed theory. - The Big Bang " The big bang theory is the theory that the states that the universe was initially very small and very dense, and began expanding[13]. The evidence for this comes from the observation that the galaxies are moving apart, the cosmic background radiation and the abundance of particular types of atoms (the last two are actually predictions of the theory) [14]. This is by no means a complete model, as we simply do not yet have the comprehensive physics and associated mathematics to describe the point of origin and the specific processes involved. But nevertheless, the observational evidence of the CMB shows that the universe was very small and very close together. -Where did it all come from? " This question is philosophical in nature. It is not scientific. Science is primarily about the HOW: how things do and have worked, with the nature WHY always remaining unanswered. This is less a failure of science, but more concerning the limitations of what science can and cannot do. But, this doesn"t answer the actual question: Where did it all come from? Firstly, to an extent, it is by no means certain that the fundamental statement is valid: It is only the human mind and the fact I find it intuitive that something must have a cause that there should be one. I know that the universe does not work in the way I find intuitive as anyone who has read quantum theory will appreciate. In the latter theory, there is fundamentally no cause of some occurrences: Quantum tunnelling is when atoms move through an otherwise impossible barrier at random. [15] Radioactivity decay occurs using random probability: there is no physical objective cause that makes an atom decay at any given time.[16] As a result, it is fairly clear that there are already aspects of the universe that may not have a physical cause, thus calling into question whether the whole concept of the universe even requires a cause. To some extent, this is really a non-answer, however. Fundamentally, though, neither the religious nor atheists really have any objective facts regarding the cause of the universe. It is simply down to assumptions. Those that believe in a personal God may state that there must be a cause of the universe, therefore the cause is God, while also asserting that God that has always existed, or is somehow timeless and so doesn"t need an explanation of its own existence. From a purely atheistic position, I make this same assumption, that there is some aspect of the universe that always existed, or is somehow timeless that does not need an explanation of its own existence. The difference; it is not possible to infer any more than our statement that the universe requires cause. Positing that a personal deity that takes an interest in the workings and machinations of the universe at a physical level simply adds additional layers of un-provable, untestable assumption that is not directly implied or inferred from the question itself. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://tolweb.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://phylointelligence.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [11] http://myxo.css.msu.edu... [12] http://www.newscientist.com... [13] http://en.wikipedia.org... [14] http://www.talkorigins.org... [15] http://en.wikipedia.org... [16] http://en.wikipedia.org...