Evolution is wrong

Thanks for the thought-out response, My rebuttal is as follows. In regards to abiogenesis being a good place to start, and that if you attack it you somehow negate evolution, this is preposterous. This would be akin to saying that if I cannot provide the origin of matter, all theories regarding matter are out the window. Or if I cannot provide the origin of gravity, gravitational theory is somehow incorrect. Facts and theories are not negated based on you choosing an arbitrary point at which you think they should be defined, and then attacking them. That is the definition of a strawman. Theories have well-defined boundaries and they seek to explain certain phenomena. Just because abiogenesis chronologically precedes evolution doesn't imply evolutionary theory hinges on it's veracity in the slightest. As far as your notion that amino acids, etc. destroy one another near deep sea thermal vents, modern research shows this to be untrue. In [1] and [2] we find that amino acids ARE stable near these vents, and even further, in [3], that enantiomeric excess is observed in the form of left-handed amino acids, which are, as someone who knows basic biology, are the only handedness of amino acids utilized by life. Not only are these amino acids stable (the paper suggests this is due to a meta-stable thermodynamic equilibrium — aka a somewhat unstable heat/pressure relationship), but they actually fit the needs for life as we know it. I suggest if you (or any reader) have access to a college library to take a look at these papers. As for the probability of life provided for in my link, perhaps my opponent doesn't understand what the paper is saying: I shall spell it out in hopefully clearer terms. The results mathematically showed that, in the prebiotic soup, over a million trillion trillion RNA ligases could be produced within a single year, and that, from a calculation by Ekland [4] 2.5*10^(112) are efficient (they work). Thus, in a single year, it is probable that many of the RNA ligases synthesized in the primitive ocean were in fact useful sequences that could be utilized in further evolution. The same is stated for proteins. RNA is complex yes, but there are several dozen other steps in between this and "simple chemicals", all of which obey simple interaction laws present in chemistry and physics. As for RNA not being useful in running current cells — I agree, it isn't. What my opponent neglects to realize is that evolution does not have an endgoal and thus does not require that RNA be useful for all future cells. Primitive cells could have very well run off of RNA, without having the complexity today they would have no need for DNA. This is classic Irreducible Complexity logic (which my opponent seems to acknowledge by use of the mousetrap analogy.) The problem with this is it neglects exaptation (function change.) A mousetrap is no longer a mousetrap without all the pieces, but, as Ken Miller (evolutionary biologist) has demonstrated rather humorously, it makes a great tie clip. Likewise, RNA served basic functions in cells that has since been replaced by a more efficient mechanism, DNA. The fact that it isn't useful TODAY in cells is simple evidence that functions change when evolution benefits mutations in organisms that result in said function changes. Creatures with DNA prospered over RNA creatures, and thus DNA is the sole mechanism for life now. But to claim that RNA was never a part of history is to misunderstand abiogenesis and basic evolutionary biology. On to the fossil record; there is overwhelming conclusive evidence of evolution in the fossil record. I asserted that there were 30 hominid species, yes, but I also provided a link to exact information about these fossils so that you could read all about them to get all of the information that you need. As for many being fakes, this is just misinformation: Creationists like to assume this based off of two examples; Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man. These were, of course, discovered fraudulent by evolutionary scientists themselves. These ARE the minority cases, and this is apparent because Creationists can name no other examples aside from these two, which they have plugged to no end in an effort to get laymen to ignore the other 99% of the fossil base. If you have an understanding of morphology or anatomy, you would understand how scientists determine if fossils are related. I do not think you have enough knowledge in the field to be eyeballing google images of fossils and determining if they are genetically related. As for listing off half-and-half lifeforms; I only listed one to give you a general idea. If you want me to list off some more: Eryops, Paleothyris, Dimetrodon, Mesohippus, Equus, Dorudon, Pakicetus, Mammalodon, Ichthyornis, Yixianosaurus, Hylonomus, Tulerpeton, Hynerpeton, Confuciusornis, Archaeopteryx, the list goes on and on. You can find more in this list (a tentative one) at http://en.wikipedia.org... And what scientists do when they observe evidence is look for the most reasonable conclusion. When we take the fossil evidence alongside other evidence like, say, genetics, the most reasonable conclusion — the ONLY reasonable conclusion we can come to is genetic relationship, phylogenetic relationship, etc. For creatures to look and be genetically so similar, but actually be distinct creatures is to fly in the face of probability. For instance, the cytochrome C gene, linking all life forms via a complex protein chain that is nearly the same in ALL creatures, demonstrates this fact. The probability of even the most distant ancestor being somehow not related but sharing that cytochrome C strand is somewhere in the order of 1 in 10^29 (http://www.talkorigins.org...) It is the Creationist, and not the scientist, who flies in the face of probability and reason when declaring organisms are not related to one another, but were somehow created separately but yet sharing unique genetic similarities with one another. Next, my opponent misunderstands survival of the fittest. Co-adaptation is not in direct conflict with Darwinian evolution, in fact, mutualism is a large part of evolution and has never been a problem for explanation. Survival of the fittest is not some gladiatorial combat match in which the last one surviving is the fittest. If creatures can exist within their environment, then they are fit, and nature will use every possible means to ensure this, including relying on other species. Again, all that needs to happen is for you to have a better understanding OF evolution. It would go a long way in terms of your criticisms being valid. Finally, the claim of "deleterious mutations". This is in fact, incorrect. Most mutations are neutral. More are harmful than good, but with large population sizes this is not a problem. All that evolution states is that those that are more fit to survive, will send off their genes to their progeny more often than those who are unfit. Just because some mutations are deleterious doesn't mean 1) that it will result in killing the animal in question or 2) That therefore no mutations are good and therefore no creature will pass on new genetic characteristics. Simple statistics show there is no problem here again for evolution, and you can do the basic mathematics yourself. (If you are going to call foul on me for simply ‘asserting' this, I'd first ask you to provide some calculations of your own. I think you are holding me to a much higher standard of proof than you are holding to your own claims.) (I had to continue the rest in comment form below, I ran out of room!)