evolution is false

The reason the link didn't work is because I went over the 8,000 word limit and it got cut off. Also this is my first debate ever and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Now back on topic my opponent has completely ignored his own mistake that I pointed out at the beginning of the last round showing that he has no awnser. "Wikipedia is a fine source so long as you have evidence and sources. I would not believe you if you had 270 people backing you up on cartoons, because we know as a matter of fact that cartoons aren't real people. Evolution, however, is a debatable topic. " That was merely an example the point im making is that no matter how many sources you have wikipedia can't be proven true. " I suppose so, but I don't see how this has much relevance with evolution. Long ago, dinosaurs, who evolved into modern day birds, possibly could have used wings that we are not used to seeing today. For example, pterosaurs had wings of skin that evolved into feathered wings for better aerodynamics [1]. Besides what my opponent has been asking, birds have also been big factors for evidence of evolution. In the 1860s, a 150 million year old bird fossil was dug up called the Archaeopteryx. Now this dinosaur-like bird isn't the ancestor of all birds, but simply a link between the two. There are many other early period birds such as the Confuciusornis, the Enantiornithes, Yanornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and the Hesperornithiformes. " My opponent has totally ignored my question and took the rest of the paragraph. Also will developing those wings of flesh the dinosaur would be at as big a disadvantage as the bird therefore my point remains the same. "Some of the earliest fish were the Agnatha. This was a jawless fish that was extremely armored with a rasping, sucking mouth [2]. Most species of this "fish" are extinct except for two others. There is also evidence showing that fish evolved into creatures that could walk on land. In south-central Poland tetrapod (four-footed creature) tracks were found preserved in marine tidal flat sediments. Some of the tracks show little prints, evidence that the animal walked on land [3]. " The world shifts, water levels change, how do you know that the place was not covered in water then? Many fish walk on the bottom of the ocean how can you prove that it isn't one of them? "So? So? ? This is a very critical piece of evidence that dinosaurs EVOLVED into birds! This shows evolution, certainly macroevolution, as you requested. No, the ambulocetus was certainly not a whale. The ambulocetus was a crocodile that was mainly amphibious but could walk on land. It was simply nicknamed a "walking whale. " It is not still a whale. It never was. This is proof of macroevolution and my opponent seems to have conceded. Species will evolve into other species. From monkey to man, from dinosaur to birds, and from fish to various tetrapods. " What does that have to do with dinosaurs turning into birds. We are talking about walking whale things here. And how is that macroevolution it was a crocodile then and it is the same thing now. "It's a new population, because members of a species mutate to a point where they're different than their former selves. They can still breed, just not with other insects, only themselves. " Not only does DNA stop any mutations but what are the chances that multiple flies would mutate into the same thing at the same time? Its already incredibly unlikely that it would mutate in the first place but to go so far as to say that multiple would mutate into the same thing at the same time is out of this world unlikely. And didn't you say that evolution was subtle genetic changes? Is that subtle? "I didn't say we CAME from wheat plants. I say we share a few similarities in genes with them. For example, wheat plant have two sets of chromosomes, just like humans. Wheat plants and humans share an XY sex-determination system. However, we do share many more commonalities with apes and primates, specifically 96%. " Then what is the point of that statement at all? "It's not about the chromosomes, it's about the genetics. Have you ever heard of the two-headed babies, or six-fingered people? This is due to genetic mutation within the body. Genes are like a computer program. Some of the features never show up or never have been used. Some genes are turned on, some are turned off. That's why no one looks alike. Environmental factors can emphasize the "turning on" of genes and "turning off" of genes. " That is so wrong. .. .Its the alleles that you get from the parents that decide all of that! Your alleles decide all your traits. That's taught by every science teacher ever. "Most often, yes, DNA does not change rapidly. But sometimes, DNA does change, and it could be favorable. This is how new species are born. This is speciation and DNA/genetic mutation. " Wasn't that it doesn't mutate the point I just made? "What does the second law of thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution? Can you state this in your own words? Evolution does have scientific proof. I have given evidence of fossils and genetic mutations and similarities in genes. " I just told you the second law of thermodynamics goes against evolution their both theory's so one of them has to be wrong right? "Mars has not been fully investigated. It's still a mystery. An atmosphere suitable to support life forms? There is poor oxygen to breathe. Currently on Mars, there are many sulfuric gases, hard for any life to exist except deep-sea creatures. Mars very well could have had oxygen back then, and life forms could have existed. However, this mystery is yet to truly be revealed. " Thousands of years ago the air was breathable and their was water yet still no life. why is that? Why would a planet that's as livable as ours not have life? None of these things ad up the same as evolution. reference . http://www.abovetopsecret.com...