Given the available data, denying the theory of evolution is completely unreasonable

Let me begin my rebuttal by dealing with the fossil record. Regarding Australopithecus afarensis, we read: "Prevailing views of Lucy's posture are almost impossible to reconcile. When one looks at the reconstruction proposed by Lovejoy (1998) and by Weaver et al. (1985), one gets the impression that her fleshed reconstruction would be the body of a perfectly modern human biped. ... But when one looks at the preliminary reconstruction recently shown at the Smithsonian, one gets the impression of a chimpanzee awkwardly attempting to stand on its hindlimbs and about to fall on its frontlimbs (Lewin, 1988). In the latter, the implication is a "primitive" form of bipedality in the Hadar hominids. To resolve such differences, more anatomical (fossil) evidence is needed. The available data at present are open to widely different interpretations." (Abitbol, M.M., "Lateral view of Australopithecus afarensis: primitive aspects of bipedal positional behavior in the earliest hominids", J. Human Evolution 28:228, 1995) With such widely differing interpretations available, what makes Pro so sure this creature was transitional to humans? Why should we accept this as proof of evolution when the experts themselves don"t know for sure what this creature was like? Being able to walk upright doesn"t prove this thing was related to humans, for even apes today, which are 100% apes, do walk upright from time to time. In fact, its been documented some apes walk upright 10% of the time. (Lubenow, M.L., Paleoanthropology in review, TJ 10(1):13, 1996) So being bipedal is no proof of evolution. Pro"s source says: "members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase ("about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees." http://humanorigins.si.edu...... It apelike features are beyond question. (Tattersall, I. and Schwartz, J.H., Extinct Humans, Westview Press, New York, p. 88, 2001) That sounds like an ape to me. Evolutionists only assume that afarensis had the musculature to maintain "habitual" bipedalism, but these fossils didn"t come with the flesh on them to prove this. This is just the wishful thinking of over zealous evolutionists. Commenting on a biomechanical analysis of Lucy"s pelvis, lower limb bones, and reconstruction of the gluteal musculature, Christine Berge said that "an ape-like gluteal organization would offer better ability than a human-like one." (Berge, C., How did australopithecines walk? A biomechanical study of the hip and thigh of Australopithecus afarensis, J. Human Evolution 26:270, 1994) Stern and Susman "discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in trees were maintained." (Stern, J.T. and Susman, R.L., The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis, American J. Physical Anthropology, ref. 57, p. 313,1983) This evidence weighs heavily against the notion that Lucy was a habitual bipedal walker. The only other similarity to humans besides walking upright mentioned by Pro"s source was the small canine teeth. Now granted, in this way Lucy is different from apes living today, does that prove it was not just an ape? Well, just imagine if 10 years ago all the pygmies were rounded up and killed. Would that prove the pygmies were not fully human because humans now living are not so short? It would be true that today"s humans are not so short, but all that would mean is that variation within the human species included a group of short humans, just as it also includes tall, fat, blondes, brunettes, Chinese and Africans. It doesn"t make the pygmies more or less human; neither does the fact that there was a group of apes with smaller canines who also passed away prove they were any more or less than apes. If Lucy was alive today she"d be in the zoo with the other apes, not walking around with us. Pro merely claimed afarensis was transitional, but gave no arguments why we should think so. He let the links make his arguments for him. He did this with all 5 examples from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens, but I took the time to present my arguments. It took so much word space explaining why Pro's case for afarensis being transitional is bogus, that I"ll skip the others and move on to his land to sea example. Scientists have discovered footprints and trail marks of a four-footed, lizard-like creature dated 397 million years old by evolutionary standards, making them 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. These are the dates Pro's camp accepts. If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, Tiktaalik cannot possibly be the transitional between fish and amphibians as evolutionists claim. (Bryne, J., Four-legged creature"s footprints force evolution rethink, LiveScience.com, www.livescience.com/animals/100106-tetrapod-footprints.html, 6 January 2010) What now becomes of Pro"s argument that tiktaalik was found in just the right place and had just the right age according to evolutionary assumptions? What then becomes of its place in the phylogenic tree of life? Into the dumpster and back to the drawing board. Regarding this new evidence, evolutionists admit: "They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record." (Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463(7227):43"48, 2010; http://www.google.com...) "[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins." http://www.google.com...) "[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution." (Roach, J., Oldest land-walker tracks found"pushes back evolution, National Geographic News, http://www.google.com...) "We thought we"d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing." (Palaeontologist Jenifer Clack, University of Cambridge, http://www.google.com...) "That"s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us." (Palaentologist Philippe Janvier from the National Museum of Natural History, Paris, France; in: Amos, J., Fossil tracks record "oldest land-walkers", BBC News, 6 January 2010) "These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals." (Palaentologist Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, Sweden; in: Fossil Footprints Give Land Vertebrates a Much Longer History, ScienceDaily, 8 January 2010) These comments show that evolutionists are not as sure about these so-called transitional fossils as they claim to be, and people like my opponent ought to take serious not of the language they use here: "radical reassessment", "reappraisal", "surprising", "reconsider " whole picture" and "rethink." Yet, based on this discovery of tiktaalik, Pro wants to claim its completely unreasonable to deny evolution when the very evidence he proposes is in doubt? Tiktaalik was supposedly found in the right place, with the right age, with the right morphology, DNA, and all the stuff that evolutionists claim are their proofs that this is a transitional, and yet we have good evidence that it isn't transitional because tetrapods existed before tiktaalik. What this demonstrates is that just because fossil evidence like tiktaalik fits in well with evolutionary assumptions, they don't prove evolution to be true. I could say the existence of human beings fits in with theological assumptions about creation, but that doesn't prove creation is true. This also addresses Pro point about phylogenetics. We also have birds in existence before archaeopteryx which evolutionists claim is the transitional link between dinosaurs and birds. Aurornis xui was an ancient bird who lived in northeastern China 10 million years before Archaeopteryx. therefore, evolutionists such as those on the TalkOrigins website are wrong to cliam archae was a transitional. http://www.google.com...) Also notice that Aurornis has fully formed feathers. It isn't showing a state of transition towards developing feathers, it has them already. So neither do we have transitional fossils for fish to tetrapod, nor reptile to bird. I will explain to Pro what a kind is and reply to his rebuttals in the next round. Interestingly, most of what he said further proves my point that there is no evidence for evolution, as you will see.