Theory of evolution is valid

1)And of course, Con brings up "coding" in DNA. As if his arguments didn't already have enough creationist cliche's already. DNA is not "coded" into organisms. The below are lines of code public double computePayment( double loanAmt, double rate, double futureValue, int numPeriods) { double interest = rate / 100.0; double partial1 = Math.pow((1 + interest), - numPeriods); double denominator = (1 - partial1) / interest; double answer = (-loanAmt / denominator) - ((futureValue * partial1) / denominator); return answer; } Above taken from Source [1]. There is no code in DNA with the equivalent of stop(); in Java, or to put it more generally, there is not lines of code written into DNA. DNA is merely a sequence of molecules which react in certain ways under set conditions. What we use to *describe* DNA is of course the DNA bases; A, C, G & T. Just because we use these letters to describe DNA, that does not mean that DNA itself intrinsically contains code. You'd do well to actually spend a bit of time in Notepad C++. Heck, even if it's looking over the code lines for Minecraft shader-packs of all things, you'd at least know the difference between lines of code and our interpretation of molecules reacting to specific circumstances. 2) Well, you screwed yourself here. Again. You're obviously trying to extend the observed effects of the 1977 drought to past events. "The Grants study Darwin's finches, the birds that Darwin himself collected on his visit to the Galapagos Islands. The ancestors of these 13 species arrived on the islands approximately 3 million years ago according the studies on their DNA... The birds then rapidly diversified into many different forms, adapting to the many different opportunities the islands offered for finding food." If you want to claim that evolution did not happen because of droughts, you need to present evidence of such droughts. Great quote-mine of Darwin by the way. Real classy. If you actually read the Origin of Species (and let's face it; there's no way on Earth you've actually read it), you wouldn't have quote-mined. So let's take a look at the *actual* quote, shall we? "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." [2] I am using the First British Edition of the Origin of Species which was published in 1859. You can find the entire quote on pg. 186-187. What's next on the list of creationist to-do-list? Going to quote-mine Darwin about complex organs? Or are you next going to try and throw him under the bus for his use of higher races in the Origin of Species? Take this as a caveat the next time you want to try and get your information from Creation.com. Next time, at least have the dignity to read the actual source you're quoting, and not just regurgitate whatever some creationist hack of a website has to state on the matter. 4) No, actually it does have a bearing on your "argument." These differing categories of eyes form up an evolutionary pathway which can be traced back [3]. That journal goes over how early organisms evolved photoreceptors --> image forming eyes formed in Cambrian Explosion --> ospins --> eye-cup --> development of retina etc. and this is specifically talking about the evolution of eyes in vertebrates. As for the Cambrian Explosion, you'd do well to realise that soft-bodied organisms don't fossilise nearly as well as hard-bodied organisms. Hint: hard bodied organisms are prolific in the Cambrian Explosion. Riddle me that now why don't you. Also, that journal quoted the exact same passage from Darwin that I gave lol. And funnily enough, they didn't quote-mine him. Because you know. That's dishonest an all that. Whereas I've actually given evidence to support my position, you've conflated DNA with being made up of code, you've performed a non-sequitur by attempting to imply that just because a drought had an influence of finches prior to that of the 1977 drought, that means that evolution didn't take place in the past, you quote-mined Darwin and the reason why I brought up those different categories of eyes, went completely over your head. Also, if you're going to cite Creation.com as a source, please give me a trigger warning next time. Otherwise, I might reach for a bottle of cyanide to drown my sorrows <-- Yes, that's a joke. What I'm getting at is this: don't use Creation.com as a reputable source; don't use any other YEC hack of a website for that matter as well. If you do, you are easy pickings for people who have been debating this for a while. You use Creation.com as a reputable source, you are simply asking for your opponent to have a field day with you. Sources: [1] https://docs.oracle.com... [2] http://darwin-online.org.uk... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...