Evolution: True? (Continuation)

It's been fun. I'll keep this short since the debate has been so long already. If you read nothing else of the debate, read this. I've highlighted several problems with evolutionary theory. The pointer to chirality for instance, or the Cambrian explosion. These are significant holes in the theory that my opponent has no easy answers to. Sure, he can say the theory will adjust to accommodate these things, and some day a scientist might write some theory the theory that does. But then that theory is no longer evolution. It is something else. Why not just follow the path of the answers we have available? I ask the voters to turn their attention to the bombardier beetle. For thousands of years bombardier beetles destroyed themselves according to the theory of evolution, before they evolved a safety mechanism. And yet the bombardier beetle did not die out. A similar case can be made for giraffes - who, I might add, survive not through some magic blood-pressure management system but through their neck being at just the right proportion for gravity to do it for them. One could be forgiven for thinking that we are out in the ocean. What about when I said new genes are not created? My opponent divulged into the great red herring of how amino acids are changed from one type to another. Or with respect for the second law of thermodynamics? My opponent gives a good explanation of how it is possible. He does not address the fact that it is in violation of the law, so therefore evolution must be an exception. Then my opponent forgot how to test a theory. I think textbooks simplify this too much - "it's creationism or evolution", "it's the big bang or steady-state" and so on and so forth. In reality, a whole bunch of scientists are paid by universities to produce research. This research constitutes of a test hypothesis and a null hypothesis. The scientist must attempt to show the test hypothesis is true because otherwise the research is wasted. After repeated trials, perhaps the scientist will find strong evidence against the null. I however, have shown even stronger evidence for the null. Therefore the null is more likely to be true. That's how science really works! That's why most universities make stage-1 science students take statistics papers. That's why casting doubt on a theory makes it less scientifically plausible. My opponent then decided to accept the expert opinion of a select few scientists as being more valid than our judgment (paleontologists), but went on to say that our opinion was just as valid as any other opinion (surveys). That's just one example of a very inconsistent argument. He says that there will never be a mutation to make one's leg blue as too many genes would need to change, but then is happy to admit scales can change to feathers with only a few very simple mutations. My opponent says evolution does not suggest mutation, and then is happy to debate mutation in point #2 - all as an excuse to opt out of debating one of the most powerful attacks on evolution. He says that eagles had very good reasons to not evolve, but then does not state why the same factors do not apply to kiwis. There were two other attacks I put on the table. First, I noted the sparse fossil record with a multitude of missing links. My opponent has focused on human evolution, and given long lists from multiple researchers of transitional "human" fossils. He does not acknowledge my sources pointing out that every last one of them is a fraud. He dismisses my sources as biblical propaganda. In the same vein, I could label all his sources as liberal propaganda. Therefore his counter-argument is invalid. There are no known real human transitional fossils. Secondly I talked about speciation rates. I admit this argument is speculative, like my opponent asserts, but all the best simulations all point to the same inescapable conclusion - that even without human intervention, animals would die out faster than new animals are born. Surely this must count for something? So now, I suggest that voters have another look through my 18 attacks and my opponent's lack of justifications for the evolution hypothesis. I don't suggest that voters follow my opponent's advice to vote on behalf of their own research, because then this is no longer a debate. If my opponent does not present the argument, he should not win. As I have shown, my opponent's responses have been inadequate, his justifications have been non-existent, and the moot must fall.