Evolution (speciation) is false

To start off with my rebuttal, I'd like to state that you have not put up another theory as to how we ended up on earth. 1. As I stated before with my scientific evidence, we DO know that evolution IS REAL 2. Yes, a theory has been well tested and explains a part (in fact quite a few parts) of the natural world 3. Natural selection IS the means by which evolution occurs 4. Inheritance and genetics DO play a large role in evolution First off, in my 'second paragraph', I did provide evidence, and generalizations are evidence. To add to that, you can't accuse me of this when you haven't provided a shred of evidence yourself. The theory of gravity is not irrelevant in proving that evolution has been tested. Evolution HAS been tested with hundreds of years of research. What other theory or explanation do you have for this? The basis of my hypothesis being accepted is that a tiny percentage of scientists believe that evolution was not the beginning of us, who are (no offense intended) idiots. This is exactly the same as scientists who still believe that the world is flat... proven false. And yes, I am arguing that because scientists believe it, it will be true. Not 'we should consider it'. If you argue that that doesn't verify it, I ask what verify's your aguement? We know that offspring are usually born with mostly random variations due to science; and if you don't know what 'mostly random' means, maybe you should search it up in the dictionary. The force that drives these variations is genetics/genes. I'm not sure if you took biology at school, but if you did, you should be understanding the simple facts around this. If we don't reproduce then how do we exist? These variations are clearly helpful as they help to shape who we are, and this point is also irrelevant to the moot. What offspring are you talking about when you ask whether they would survive or reproduce? People are born every single day and I am alive so yes, I have survived. I think I'll sort out the rest of this argument when I understand what variations you are talking about. The fact that you are saying that we don't have transitional fossils (WHICH WE ACTUALLY DO- SEARCH IT UP) doesn't prove your point in any way. It wouldn't matter if we didn't have them (BUT WE DO HAVE THEM) because it proves absolutely nothing. One piece of evidence (or more like assumption) doesn't prove an arguement. How is this scientific? It doesn't matter if it's scientific. Scientists don't prove everything- fossils are the job of an archeologist. This argument is not 'hypothetical and actually philosophical.' Your strange example of this 'rabbit' doesn't prove any point at all. Science does have evidence that we have evolved over time, and unless you can come up with a shred of evidence or even an arguement point that works on your side, you do not have a case. Whether you believe in God or not is completely irrelevant here. This isn't a debate on whether God exists or not, this is a debate on whether evolution happened... which it did. This 'story' you put up about a green bug that sits on a green tree and how it must have changed for a long time to adapt to the colour of the tree is exactly correct. Congratulations on finally getting something right! These creatures have adapted to their surroundings over time, and for your case on how 'it would be ridiculous to put a red bug on the tree,' there are red bugs on trees... just something to think about. Just to add in a point here that you have failed to recognise, the idea of evolution is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a scientific fact. Want an example of this? Your arguement: Black holes don't exist. My (and the correct) arguement: Black holes do exist, and here are the reasons why... (scientific evidence/theories). This is the exact same concept with evolution. Surely you believe that black holes exist despite there being, as you put it, "no scientific evidence", so why don't you take the same stance on evolution? The basic concept of speciation logic: a cow turning into a whale. First off: what a stupid example for the following reasons: 1. that whales OBVIOUSLY did not originate from cows; they originated from Pakicetus, which were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth- extra point to make... cows do not have teeth. This incorrect piece of evidence you have used here proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. What properties exactly would have to be changed for a land dwelling creature to turn into a sea dwelling creature? The genetic of them... when chromosones of a male and female come together they produce a child. (?) + (?) = (?). One animal + another animal = new species. Also, we have learned to adapt to our environment, and animals do the exact same thing, which is the reason behind evolution. In order to survive, animals continue to adapt to their surroundings. Yes. You got another thing right! These changes do happen 'ramdomly'. But they do not occur in a perfect manner. We can't (without genetic engineering) decide and then produce a boy or girl. This happens naturally. So no. This statement that you have made is wrong. Just because they do happen randomly and don't occur in a 'perfect manner' doesn't mean that species will randomly die off 'without successfully reproducing because their organs and extremities are only half developed.' No one knows how many changes are required to change from a creature that lives on land to one that spends it's entire life in the ocean. These animals continue to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Think about the ice age over a million years ago... this is what adapting to their surroundings is about. By living in the ocean they were able to survive. Whether it takes more than 50,000 morphological (do you even know what this word means?) changes or not, this is (once again) COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. We just need animals to adapt to their surroundings. Not 50,000 sequences, and might I add that you continue to question my evidence, and on this particular point I question yours, as you have stated that 'a biologist (i.e. 1 biologist) once made.' The evidence that we have around this clearly proves that this did in fact take place. For this entire case you have talked about animals, and now you are suddenly moving onto water. How interesting. Once again, why don't you ask a scientist who actually knows what they are talking about rather than going onto some website with dodgy and false information. Whether the big bang happened or not is also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Evolution still occured whether you want to believe this or not, and this is completely irrelevant to whether the big bang happened or not. This experiment, 'the Urey-Miller experiment' that you seem to have read so much into you suddenly believe is false if also wrong, as majority of scientists believe that it is true, and they know a lot more than you on evolution. The part of this that I am finding ironic is that you continue to dismiss all of the evidence that these brilliant, smart scientists have proven as if you are some kind of genius that just seems to know the answer to everything. No offence, but I don't think that you are, and don't get me wrong, neither am I. I am simply stating the facts that are actually factal and true, written on paper which prove that evolution did in fact happen. Maybe, if you want to believe it, not with a 'Big Bang', but there are many other explanations and theories (which I have stated above) that prove that evolution exists, and it is also obvious that I could not fit every single piece of evidence into 7000 characters, so if you need more proof, search it online for yourself. So therefore, let me just say that, like you so brilliantly stated in your last argument, "you have presented no evidence or proof otherwise, rather an opinionated and useless theory." Evolution did happen, and the facts that I have presented prove the reasons why