The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

In your first argument you claimed life cannot come from non-life. "For life, you need about 200 of those proteins."- So life can in fact come from non-life(proteins). "getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids_ by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row." Why by chance? This is the biggest misconception regarding evolution. Evolution doesn't happen by change and it is not a random process. Evolution consists of mutation, that is indeed random, and selection, that is non-random. To avoid further confusion, evolution doesn't have a goal, selection is simply survival of the fittest and varies from ecosystem to ecosystem, but a species isn't selected "by chance". Imagine Earth is his early days. Everything recreated in the Miller-Urey experiment exists at a larger scale. The whole Earth had the conditions recreated by Miller and Urey, so amino acids formed everywhere. Life appeared 3.6 billion years ago, but amino acids started forming long before that. Amino acids didn't just form once. The Earth had the proper conditions for them to form for millions of years, so they continued to form for millions of years. Eventually, you have an incredible number of animo acids that start to form proteins(not by chance, amino acids are bonded by peptide bonds forming proteins). Once you have proteins, you have life, so there you go: life from non-lifeAlso, the 2nd law of thermodynamics has no place in this debate. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only valid in closed systems. The Earth receives energy (from the sun) as well as matter (especially in his early days, from meteors) making it an opened system. "non-living organisms that can't reproduce on their own." - Viruses don't reproduce, they replicate. You can't just consider all viruses as part of the same species. They don't reproduce, but they can be grouped into "species" by the type of cell they need to infect in order to replicate. Viruses still mutate and evolve. You can't consider the HIV and SIV virus the same, as their structure as well as host-cells are different.You completely misunderstood the fly experiment. They weren't infertile, they were unable to mate with individuals from different populations."They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions"The beetle doesn't disprove macro evolution. It might seem complex now, but it's just the result of years of micro evolution and natural selection. "All of these had to come about AT THE EXACT SAME TIME"- Beetles reproduce at a very fast rate, so before dying they had great chances to pass their genes. "A single female may lay from several dozen to several thousand eggs during her lifetime. "Why do you assume they got the chemicals before the muscle and the chambers? Your whole argument is based on the assumption that if they had evolve, they would have evolve in a certain pattern, decided by you."Your attack on intelligent design, the fact that God didn't give humans better hearing,"Nope, I said that with intelligent design certain limitations don't make sense, while with evolution, they make perfect sense. Humans are supposed to be God's ultimate creation, yet a beetles seems a lot more "intelligently designed" than a human. Conclusion:Life can come from non-life, evolution can explain the origin of life. Micro evolution proves change occurs, when you consider the timescale of macro evolution, it seems obvious that some major changes( new species ) will occur. The fly experiment and HIV mutation support my claims. I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate.Sources:http://evolution.berkeley.edu...