The Theory of Evolution Has Many Flaws

First, let’s look at the definition of ‘Flaw’. Flaw - ‘a mistake or shortcoming in a plan, theory, etc. which causes it to fail or reduces its effectiveness’ - from oxford dictionary. This actually means two different things, A mistake in a theory which causes it to fail. OR A shortcoming in a theory which reduces its effectiveness. Your Resolve - “Evolution theory has many flaws” If by flaw you meant “Shortcoming or limitation that reduces the effectiveness of the theory”, then you are correct. In this case I concede and congrats, you win. But if by flaw you meant “mistakes that invalidates the whole theory”, then you are completely wrong. Why completely wrong? Here it goes, Like I stated previously, Evolution is a work in PROGRESS. Just like Physics, Biology, chemistry so on and so forth. Whereas Creationism is pretty much over. And as for Intelligent design, it is far unlikely to be true compared to evolution. And here on I assume that you are an advocate of ID(Intelligent Design) because you don’t seem to be satisfied with evolution. Why ID is NOT better than evolution? The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. – Source: Wikipedia. Why Evolution is better than ID? First, evolution and intelligent design are not seen (by the advocates of Intelligent Design) as necessarily incompatible. Some of the most vocal advocates of Intelligent Design (like Michael Behe) do not dispute the evolution of modern species from common ancestors, they just dispute whether Darwinian natural selection alone is enough to explain it. So the question is not whether evolution or intelligent design is more plausible, but whether natural selection or intelligent design is a more plausible explanation of evolution. And I have hard time understanding Intelligent Design as an explanation (plausible or not) of *anything*. Saying "natural selection can't explain X" is not the same as offering an alternative explanation! Saying "the Designer designed it" is no better an explanation than saying "the Creator created it", or "the Dreamer dreamed it." It doesn't actually *EXPLAIN* anything. Or to put it another way, all it does is take the thing to be explained (a flagellum, an eye, a blood clotting system) and replaces it with something *completely* unexplainable ... something with no known mechanism, origins, energy source, motive, etc. So it does not *EXPLAIN* the complexity of the cell to say that it was just "designed" by something infinitely more complex! That is not making progress. Natural selection on the other hand is a phenomenal explanation for why evolution occurs. It provides the *mechanism* for evolution. It explains what causes evolution in terms of far simpler concepts, such as variation, inheritance, and competition. This mechanism is testable. It is verifiable. It is even reproducible. In fact we demonstrate the fundamental process of natural selection whenever we breed domestic animals and plants, effectively manipulating the process of natural selection by manipulating the reproductive environment (which individuals get to produce more offspring) of the species. And through this we have been able to demonstrate the extreme pliability of species in a relatively short amount of time. - Source: Yahoo Answers. Now I will try and answer your questions. 1. The First Cell: I will just give the short version, read the source for more elaborate explanation. Water under seafloor -> Serpentinisation ->Iron-sulphur bubbles -> formation of Acetyl phosphate -> Nucleotides -> RNA and DNA -> First organic cells (protocells) -> Bacteria and Archaea. 2. Genetic code: There are 3 theories in evolution that attempts to solve this issue. StereoChemical theory, Adaptive theory and Coevolution theory. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. Origin of sexes: First came the separation of the diploid state (where all chromosomes are paired) and a haploid state (where the chromosome pairs are separated, so each cell has half the full number of chromosomes). For example, slime mold amoebas are normally diploid, but can form small haploid cells ... called spores ... that can travel and combine with other spores to produce new diploid individuals (fertilization). That's basic sexual reproduction. The next step is in the slow specialization of two kinds of haploid cells. Some get smaller and are specialized for mass-production, and for lightness (so they can be carried farther by air or water) ... while others get larger as they contain all the nutrients needed to start a new individual after fertilization. The smaller cells we call "male gametes" (sperm or pollen), and the larger ones we call "female gametes" (egg cells or ova). The next step are organs that specialize in either mass-producing and distributing male gametes, or specialize in producing female gametes and providing an environment for growth after fertilization (e.g eggs in the case of animals or seeds in the case of plants). And finally comes the specialization of individuals to have only one kind of sexual organ or the other, rather than all individuals having both (the way most flowering plants are). Male and female organs will continue to get more and more differentiated from each other, but will always work together. That's because those individuals of any generation that do *not* work well with the sexual organs of the opposite sex, don't reproduce, and therefore those genes don't last long. But other than that ... any slight alteration in the sex organs of either sex that makes it a little better at doing what it does best (e.g. the way that placental mammals slowly kept the egg internally for longer and longer until the egg is never laid outside the body, but becomes a placenta ... and the young "hatch" directly from the mother). Source: Yahoo answers 4. Evolution of Insects: Refer this page: http://www.sciencedaily.com... 5. What was the first organism to gain the heart, the blood vessels and the blood? Annelida - from Wikipedia. 6. Which came first, DNA or Protein? It seems rather unlikely that two molecules which are so important for life appeared at the same time, but on the other hand it seems absurd to have one without the other. Some biologists among which Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, each one of them on his own, assumed that there was a compound which could both duplicate without the help of proteins as well as catalyze each phase of the protein synthesis. This compound is supposed to be the RNA, because it is a simpler molecule compared to DNA and it is easier to synthesize. Subsequently, many studies confirmed this supposition, including the discovery of enzymes made of RNA so they understood that not all chemical reactions are performed by proteins. They even succeeded to modify some RNA molecules with enzyme functions to make them able to bind nucleotides of RNA itself. Source: http://www.eniscuola.net... 7. Can evolution explain the complexity of the giraffe? I couldn’t find an answer to this question. This piece of puzzle maybe solved in the future or maybe not. 8. If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards? Why would you raise a question about SOLAR SYSTEM if you consider the definition of Evolution to be, I quote “The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”? I defined evolution to include whole universe(in round 2) precisely because of your 8th question. But now you switch case to biological realm and still persist on this planetary question. This baffles me. A Totally Irrelevant Question. Conclusion: The theory of Evolution has, like you said, has limitations but not mistakes. You have given zero evidence to disprove evolution. So my verdict, Evolution remains Victorious. As for this debate, it all depends on what you meant by ‘Flaw’ in your resolve. If you meant it as shortcomings, then you win. Else I win. And Thank you for this debate.