Evolution is a ridiculous theory

"First let me define evolution as: The Development of higher species (Such as humans) that have evolved (or changed) from lower species as a result of natural selection and the passing down of common genes to the next generation. (Common ideas of 'evolves' are fish, apes, and even yeasts)" I will agree with this definition "My opponent has challenged me to prove why this is implausible. Now, to fully understand the theory of evolution, one must first have a basic understanding of genetics. Traits are passed down from one generation to the next by alleles. Alleles are located on the chromosomes, and determine the phenotype of an organism. Here is an important part: The phenotype of an organism is dependant on the genotype, or the genetic makeup of an organism. If the gene is not present, that neither can the phenotype. So, lets apply this to common evolutionary theories." We agree here. "One common theory is Lamarck's proposition of evolution. This basically says that phenotype is based on usage. He givs the examples of the blindness in moles, and the large claw on some crabs. Applying proven scientific facts, this cannot be true. Since phenotype is based on genotype, this cannot be the case." Lamarck's theory is disproven and out of date. There is no proof to it and it should be excluded from this debate "Another common theory is Darwin's. Similar problems occur within his theory. He says fish started walking on land, and turned into little crawlers, which turned into bigger critters, which turned into apes, which turned into humans. Again, science is against this theory. How does a fish get oxygen-competent lungs? Or even legs for that matter? How does it get toes? Lose its scales? Lose its fins? Get hair?! This is an absurd theory. Granted, neither Darwin nor Lamarck knew what we do now about genetics. They could not have know. But, with what we know for fact, these are absolutely implausible ideas." Your statment has a common problem. Most people ask how these changes are made. The changes are a series of small changes. Now all these changes are made because of a cause. For example, Single celled organisms needed to get more energy (food) so they grew larger into multiple celled organisms. Then they needed to transport energy and nutrients through their body so they formed the respitory, digestive, and circulation systems. It is through this cycle that they developed body systems in order to make their lives easier, somewhat like the bacteria in my sources becoming resistant to antibiotics. All organisms change due to our environment, like dogs shedding. Then, they pass these changes on to their offspring. "Another problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of intermediate-staged fossils. If evolution were true, there would be unmistakable fossil evidence. Because there are no such fossils, given a few mutated examples, Evolution is again proved false. IF it were true, there would have to be ample amounts of the fossils." First off, we don't have many fossils because of the way they are formed, when something dies, it doesn't always have a fossil. Second off, we do have these: http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.utexas.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... https://www.msu.edu... All of these fossils are examples of "transitions" from apes to humans. So the idea that there isn't fossil evidence is absurd. "So, combining what we KNOW FOR FACT about the fossil record, and genetics, we see evolution as COMPLETELY ridiculous. There is no way that this theory is even plausible." Not quite, genetics can completely uphold this theory and there is more than enough fossil evidence. "Now I leave my opponent with a challenge. I have proven evolution to be false. The burden is now on you to show I am wrong. You must deny scientific fact, for the sake of this absurd theory. (An impossible task for any man in his right mind) If you fail to do so, you surely have lost this debate." I think I can do this.