There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution

I would like to begin by saying that there is indeed no absolute proof of evolution. According to the "Theory of Evolution" all living species of plants and animals evolved in a slow process through random mutations and natural selection over the course of billions of years. A primitive fish developed functional limbs, then walked out on to the land, where it "evolved" a complete skeleton, lungs, and newly-modified olfactory, auditory and sensory systems. But how, exactly, did these changes take place? What are the mechanisms and required steps? How did the bones form? Or the muscles? Or the nerves, or the auditory and olfactory systems? Evolutionists have pulled a masterful bait-and-switch on society. They have tricked a segment of the population into believing that evolution is true based on a twisting of the evidence. The simple fact that organisms have within their genome the ability to adapt to changing environments has been misconstrued as a selectionist, populational phenomenon. For example, the artic fox's fur can change from a mid-summer brown to a pure winter white in just a matter of months. The Jamaican beetle's phenotype changes from yellow-green to orange depending on circumstance. Many spiders also have this morphological ability to show versatility and change colors. Likewise, lizard legs are adjustable on-the-fly according to the length of grass and type of terrain they're in. This stuff happens all over creation: fish can change colors, snakes have plastic/changeable jaw sizes that are dictated by diet. Mice teeth are quickly shaped and molded by diet. Guppies and tadpoles both have the ability to grow larger in the presence of predators. Some lizards, when dietary needs are scarce, can shrink up to 20% of their body size, including the elimination of bone. Each of these changes simply represents a genome's adaptability. Yet, evolutionists over the decades have mis-characterized many of these adaptive qualities as examples of Darwinian evolution, more specifically selectionist evolution: guppies, cichlids, peppered moths, flies, lizards have all been touted as examples of "evolution" in the field. The reality is, this is just a fantasy of make-believe, compliments of the tooth fairy. But evolutionists have successfully extrapolated an individual organism's inherent genetic capabilities as evidence of radical, across-the-board populational changes that confirm Darwin's nutball hypothesis. When God created the world, he could have made animals highly adapted to specific environments....but this would have disallowed them from being flexible at all. But instead, He designed animals less specific to any one environment, yet highly adaptive to a wide-range of environments. Of course this is beautifully logical -- and indeed what we see around us. It is a well-established fact of palaeontology that there is no trace in the earth's strata of the transitional forms that are absolutely essential if Darwin's theory of gradual transformation is to have the slightest credibility. It is a well-established fact that living forms, whether invertebrates, reptiles or flowering plants, all appear suddenly in the strata, fully-formed, in great variety and with no trace of any intermediate forms that would enable us to link them with each other or any hypothetical ancestors. Darwin was confident that with the progress of geology, these forms would turn up. But they have not. Darwin's theory is that the diversity of organisms in the living world is the result of natural selection, which has ensured that among countless chance variations in offspring only those have survived that conferred some advantage in the endless struggle for existence. It is now quite certain that things happened differently I would like to now adress my opponent to his turn. thankyou -foshizzle