Evolutionary theory is the best explanation for biodiversity according to the current evidence

I apologize for misreading the stipulations of this debate; I was under the incorrect understanding that round 1 was only for acceptence, but that was my error. Anyways, on to the debate. The "best" scientific explanation is one that is (1) is more in agreement with the currently known "facts" (not theories) of science; (2) has the greatest explanatory scope in terms of expalining all the data; (3) is testable and (or) observable; and (4) requires the least amount of acceptance of extremely slim probabilities. As I will demonstrate, my scientific explanation for biodiversity meets all these criteria more adequately than evolution. My argument is that all the biodiversity on this planet can be better accounted for by an intelligent being (or beings) creating live on the earth. Agrees with Facts of Science Creation agrees with the facts of the natural world againt evolution. A, evolution models hold that life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical reactions. This has never been repeated in laboratory experiments or observed as naturally occuring in the world. Creation holds life only comes from previous life, which we do see in nature daily as living things only come from former living things. Evolution holds that complex life forms came from simple ones, with millions transitional forms linking previous ones. Creation holds exactly what we see in the fossil record, that complex lifeforms appear suddenlyingreat variety, each kind separat from previous ones with no links in between. In fact, there has never been found a simple beginning. Evolution says new kinds arise gradually with incomplete bones and organs in various transitional stages, but what we do find in the fossil record is that all the kinds are fully forms with no incomplete parts. Evolution claims mutation resulted in beneficial attributes that enabled he species to survive as it evolved, but reality is that small mutations are harmful, large ones deadly; never results in anything new. Evolution claims language evolved from the gruts of simple animal sounds, but modern language studies show modern languages came from more complex ancient ones like Hebrew, Aramic, etc. These examples show that creation agrees with proven facts better than evolution. Explantory Scope Pro made the point that "Your genome contains around 3,2 billion nucleotides. That is 3200000000 letters which codes for you." The mere fact that scientists use words like "letters" and "codes" to describe the information packed in the genes shows that is meaninful and complex. Nature can produce patterns, but when we see "letters" and "codes" we know that rationally, there must be intelligence behind it. Evolution does not explain how the information got there to begin with. DNA is a long, helical structure found inside the nucleus and mitochondria of the cell. It is made of a four-molecule alphabet arranged in a very specific order. This sequence is like an instruction book telling the cell what parts to use to build a protein. But this instruction book needs to be de-coded with other proteins. The difficult thing is that proteins are needed to make more DNA, but DNA is needed to make proteins. And the cell cannot function without proteins. Deliberate creation could give us both DNA and protein simultaneously but "chance" cannot. DNA is a very complex information processing system. In fact, Bill Gates has compared it to a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. (Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (Viking, 1995), 188) DNA is more than just an improbable sequence of bases; it is functional. It tells the cells what to do. So the question we really need to answer is, how can this kind of information arise in the first place? Minds produce information, blind natural forces do not. Chance is not a good explanation for the origin of DNA, because the probability of getting something as specified and complex as DNA is well beyond the accepted probability of zero. The other option is DNA might have come about because of necessity or natural law. Maybe there is some chemical or natural reason that forced the DNA molecules to form. Two examples of this type of origin of life theory are self-organization and biochemical predestination. The idea behind both of these is that the molecular alphabet in DNA arranged itself because of chemical properties or environmental factors. Unfortunately, scientists have found that the molecules in DNA do not chemically interact with each other because they are stuck to a phosphate backbone, not to each other.(The only time the nucleotides in DNA interact with each other is when they are paired, A-T, C-G, and they do this through hydrogen bonding. However, this pairing is with nucleotides across from each other and serves to protect the DNA molecule. The coding has to do with the sequence of bases next to each other, and there is no chemical reason for one nucleotide to "prefer" being next to another.) On top of that, there isn't even a chemical attraction between these DNA sequences and the protein parts they code for (known as a codon). Since there is not a self-organizing motivation for this, and there is not an environmental factor that would favor certain combinations over others, necessity seems to fall short of explaining the functional information of DNA. Observable, Testable We observe intelligent beings creating complex machines, so too, the more complex brain, the most complex "machine" should have adesigner. We observe life coming from life. Evolution though has no such backing. Animal only produce "according to their kinds," and even where a horse and donkey mate to get a mule, the offspring is sterile, not resulting in a new species that can resproduce on its own. The Least acceptance to Impossible Odds. As I said to an opponent in a former debate, " there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life's proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life's proteins, all are left-handed! How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 to the 113th power (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening." So evolution stands no chance of passine even the stage of abiogenisis. As a painter uses similar styles in his works, all similarities in species can be accounted for by creation the same being(s). I'll reply in detail to Pro's points in the next round.