Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

The first thing I noticed in my opponent"s argument is that he/she is using sources to make their argument. That is not how debates are supposed to work. A debater is supposed to present information and use sources so that there is a good reliable source for their arguments. Imagine a live debate where a debater says "I"m right because this link says so". "The fossil record is best shown in Humans. Fossils such as Neanderthal, Taung Child, Lucy, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, and many more." The first thing I saw when I clicked your link was a page filled with artist depictions of supposed human ancestors. I've clicked the fossils link and saw hundreds on bones. Because I don"t have the knowledge or understanding of fossils to properly refute your claims I will leave that argument for another day. However, I can refute the claim that humans descended from ape-like creatures using genetics. It is commonly believed that humans share around 98.5% of common DNA with chimpanzees. However, looking at how the human genome contains around 3 billion base pairs [1]. A 1.5% difference would mean 45,000,000 pair difference. A couple of mutations in the right pairs would be fatal. However, another study by Roy Britten, a molecular biologist, found the difference to be at 5%, a significant increase [2]. Another study by Gagneux and Varki revealed that there are vital differences between chimp DNA and human DNA. To begin with, chimps have 24 chromosomes whereas we have 23. In case you don"t know, chromosomes are thread-like structures that consist of heavily compacted genetic information. Considering the chimps have an extra chromosome makes a big difference [3]. One of the biggest differences between DNA of humans and chimps is the Y-chromosome. In the study, the Y-chromosomes of chimps and humans are around 50% different from each other. Mutation will not be enough to account for this difference as it is mathematically for ape-like creatures that reproduce rather slowly to undergo enough mutations to account for the difference. I"m referring to Haldane"s dilemma [4]. Conclusion 1: We did not descend from ape-like creatures. "It's been observed in labs. Evolution has been shown to happen in labs." I would note again that my opponent used a link as an argument without explaining what the link even describes. The link and the YouTube clip basically refer to Lenski"s experiments with E.coli bacteria. Since bacteria rapidly reproduce, it would make sense that if evolution is to be observed, it would be seen with bacteria. In the experiment, E.coli bacteria have been observed to be able to use citrate as an energy source in an environment low in glucose. The author of this article makes it look like that bacteria using citrate is anything new. However, this is not the case. First of all, E.coli bacteria have always utilized citrate in aerobic respiration during the Krebs cycle [5]. In addition, E.coli bacteria have had the ability to use citrate as an energy source during anaerobic respiration [6]. How this has happened is unclear as the article doesn't specify what kind of change occurred. There are multiple possibilities as to how this could have happened due to the loss of information. Let me quote Dr. Don Batton on this one: "So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium"s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down"a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about. Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations." [7] I"m going to reiterate from my first argument. Mutations do a great job of destroying functional genes but cannot account for information to make bones, feathers, brain cells, nerves, and complex motors such as Adenine Triphosphate Synthase. Now in your rebuttal you brought up a couple more links saying that evolution was observed. However these links amount to natural selection has been observed so evolution is true. However as stated in my previous argument, natural selection is not a created process but destroys information. I would like to refer to your Scientific American article guilty of using a straw man argument that we creationists believe in fixed of species. This is not true, we believe in fixed kinds. You can have many varieties of dogs but they will remain dogs. "Many animals are similar physically and genetically showing that they came from a common ancestor." I do not see how this refutes creationism. If we are a result of an intelligent designer, it would make sense for him to use common designs for his creatures. Genetically similar organisms do not mean that there is a common ancestor as shown in the first part of my rebuttal. Now let"s look closer at your rebuttal. "Abiogenesis is not part of evolution" I believe you misunderstood my argument as I made the evolution obstacles argument under the assumption that lifeless chemicals already came together to create the first organism. "DNA is not information, it is a molecule, and last time I checked DNA can mutate and change causing it to be a new DNA strand." I"ll just refer back to my first argument. "What is most intriguing about DNA is that it is a very sophisticated language system where the "words" have a completely different meaning than the nucleotides or "letters" much like how the meaning of words are different than the letters it is composed of." Arguing that DNA is not a code because it is a polymer is analogous to saying that the words on this page is not information but a bunch of electrons excited pixels on a screen. Conclusion: DNA is a code "DNA can mutate and change causing it to be a new DNA strand." Well last I checked you sort of have to have DNA to begin with before it can start mutating. "Sexual reproduction is helpful because it has more variation, and therefore less chance of genetic diseases." Explaining why something would be advantageous does not explain how it would arise. "If you want to use God you first have to prove he exists no one has done this so you can't use him." There is intricate design even in the simplest cell. An archaeologist finds ancient pottery, the pottery has a designer. A person sees a building, the building has a designer. A person sees a machine, there was a designer. There is design in every living thing, there is a designer. The universe follows natural laws, there is a lawgiver. "He's saying that we are coming after it is done, scientists concluded that it was evolution, just like at a murder scene the detective concludes that it is a murder." You"re missing the point of historical science. You weren't there so you can"t truly know what happened. In addition, a detective looks at a fact and makes an interpretation that will fit his story. For example, a dead body is not always indicative of a crime. Also eyewitness testimonies play a huge part in criminal investigation. In addition, forensic science looks at facts observed today to solve a crime that occurred rather recently whereas evolution tries to look at facts observed to find out what happened millions of years ago. "Mutations do create new Information in the genome" I believe that my rebuttal of E.coli using citrate as a food source is sufficient to refute this claim and because of character limitation I can"t go in depth into each case. Conclusion: Evolution is false. Creation is sounder. Sources: 1.https://www.genome.gov... 2.Britten, R.J. 2002. "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels." Proceedings National Academy Science99:13633"13635. 3.Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. "Genetic differences between humans and great apes." Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2"13. 4.http://creation.com... 5.http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu... 6.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7.http://creation.com...