Evolution

"Evolution is not based on fact for the reason that evolution is a theory. Your response is negated. " Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Facts are the world's data, scientific theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. "The reason why it is referred to as the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. Greek philosophers came up with the theory of evolution but Charles Darwin made evolution famous about 100 years before the discovery of DNA so he did infact make a theory based on no hard evidence. " Actually gravity is not referred to as the law of gravity, it is referred to as the Gravitational Theory. There are laws within the theory, such as if an object is dropped on Earth, then it must fall to the ground. When Darwin discovered that the diversity of life on Earth is due to evolution, there was not an incredible amount evidence to support his theory, and there were some holes in it. But as time progressed, more and more evidence was found and the holes were filled in. One of the most irrefutable pieces of evidence that was found was found by biologist Craig Venter, when he mapped out the genome and analyzed DNA. I embedded a video at the top explaining this. "If you know the time frame of evolution you would realize that I was talking about the time life started to exist on the planet according to evolution which is about 550 million years ago. " Wrong again, whether you were referring to the age of the Earth or the amount of time life has existed on Earth. Life has been on earth for 4 billion years. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "You can't argue math. It be right if you were to say if you dropped a ball over 1000000000000000000000000000000000 titles and you had to land it on Florida then the chances would be so extreme it would be impossible, because even if that many people did do it that way the ball could land in the same spot multiple times. " This argument has no relevance to this debate since we're debating EVOLUTION, not the origin of life. But by the way, improbability does not mean impossibility and abiogenesis wasn't even improbable, as explained by my video in Round 2. "The RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years. " As I explained in Round 2, the wrong methods of dating were used by the RATE group, as a way to fool people into thinking dating methods are inaccurate. Many creationists try to find evidence against evolution to try to find reasons to hold on to their supernatural explanations. "Using youtube as a credible source is pointless, because anyone can post a youtube video. Missing links have never been found because there are no findings of transitional species. You have negated evolution by proving that it takes intelligent life forms to decode DNA and manipulate organisms. You also just said that humans have never oberserved macroevolution nor have we ever observed any form of evolution. " The youtube video was simply to show you what the explanation for the origin of life is, which is an entirely different argument than evolution anyway. The video's info contains the reliable sources to where creator of the video got his information. This paragraph is further proof that you haven't looked at my sources, since I posted sources which show evidence of transitional fossils and missing links. I didn't say evolution has never been observed, while researching for this debate I actually came across a lot proof of macroevolution, such as: The islands in Croatia that show rapid evolutionary changes between their respective lizard populations. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...; The pacific oceanic island with both Kentia and Howea palms, which show sympatric speciation . http://www.sciencemag.org...; . http://www.nature.com...; Dr Lenski's lab at Michigan State where he has documented bacterial speciation in E coli. . http://www.newscientist.com...; The Pacific Northwest lake bottoms with stickleback fish. . http://www.zoology.ubc.ca...; . http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com...; Lake Victoria/ a lake in Africa where Cichlid fish have speciated based on water clarity. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...; . http://www.the-scientist.com...; New Hampshire shores where mussels are evolving in response to introduced crab species. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...; Maryland is the physical home NIH but the internet is the best place to view the Human Genome Project's various research projects to analyze and compare the genetic changes that underlie all anatomical and physiological changes between species . http://www.genome.gov... . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...; UCRiverside California has studies looking at guppy placentas to show the rapid appearance of complex organs in an organism. . http://www.gate.net...; The Solomon Islands show White Eyes of the Zosteropidae birds. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...; . http://www.gate.net...; The Congo River Africa shows fish diversity. Perhaps the greatest variation of depth in any river has driven this tropical rivers adaptive radiation by providing an unusual range of habitats. . http://evolvingwithdarwin.blogspot.com...; Damier River Trinidad guppies show evolutionary changes in behavior and fertility in 8 years . http://news.mongabay.com...; "False, . http://www.answersingenesis.org...; You trust a website that bases its information off of a 2,000-year-old fairy tale written by sheep herders, over a website that bases its information off of the countless hours of hard work, research, testing, and re-testing, of scientific methods by scientists to find the answers? . http://www.talkorigins.org... is the real information on mutations. "This is not a fact for the reason it has never been proven. " My opponent still denies the evidence of transitional fossils, and doesn't understand that macroevolution is simply the extended process of microevolution. "Transitional fossils do not exist. Scientists can make assumptions from what came from what but since genetics have not been decoded you can not compare anything to anything because you don't know there genetic make up. My opponent has failed to prove that there is even the smallest chance that evolution has occurred. " Transitional fossil do exist, as I have shown with sources. . http://www.talkorigins.org... Genetics have been decoded - as you can see in the embedded video - the DNA contains irrefutable proof that evolution has occurred in species on Earth. My opponent has failed to prove that even the smallest bit of the Theory of Evolution has been disproved, and I have presented overwhelming evidence in favor of it. Thank you, and VOTE PRO. . http://www.youtube.com...