Evolution is better supported by evidence than creationism.

My opponent has written out a rather well thought out and seemingly sensible statement. However, even the most well thought out statement that attempts to disprove evolution falls flat as I will show.RebuttalBelow I will list each of Con's arguments followed by my rebuttal.1. "...we should follow the evidence to where it leads, not let our pre-conceived notions determine the evidence."Con suggests that we shouldn't let our pre-conceived notions determine the evidence. I wholeheartedly agree. However, I contend that it is the creationist view that life was created in its current form by a "creator" that I believe attempts to twist and contort our view of the evidence into their own views.2. "If a person were asked to describe how a computer is created, without being able to talk about humans, he would have a hard time to do so."This appears to be the same basic principle as the watchmaker argument.The problem with this argument is that 1. Computers are inorganic, non-reproductive structures not capable of genetic mutation or natural selection. 2. The argument seems to insinuate that evolution must have an exact end result (computer) when evolution, if replayed from the beginning, would have almost zero possibility of returning the same list of species as today due to nearly infinite circumstances.3. "...scientific theories can still make accurate predictions but can still be wrong."My opponent lists events from nearly half a century ago to make this point. A time when little had to be done to explain a theory so long as it "worked". Modern science is great in that it is continually improving upon itself and that researchers today have much more at their disposal to explore the natural world. And in fact, since then very little in the way of peer reviewed, well accepted scientific theories have ever been proved false, but rather improved upon. Also, if evolution were disproved, it does not suggest a creator.4. "...he must give evidence on a mutation actually giving new information." New information is added to the genome of a species through a process known as "gene duplication". (1) This can occur in several different ways, usually the result of a mistake when DNA is being duplicated during meiosis. In gene duplication, a copy of certain sections of the chromosome is added within its own genome. While initially this only results in a copy of pre-existing genes, these copied genes are then capable mutating separately from the original genes, resulting in entirely new functions through neofunctionalization.(2)5. "We should be seeing many transitional forms in the fossil record."We have seen many transitional forms in the fossil record, I only listed human, but here are a few more:Archaeopteryx: A transitional fossil between reptiles and early birds. Archaeopteryx had characteristics of both orders such as teeth, a long, bony tail, and claws like a reptile while having feathers, a wishbone, and wings like a bird. (3)Tiktaalik: Tiktaalik is a species seen as a transition between fish and early amphibians. Tiktaalik is the first known fossil to have a functioning wrist joint, while having fins in the configuration of four limbs with sturdy bones for it to prop itself up on. (4)Eupodophis: An early fossilized snake that is considered a transitional form between ancient lizards and modern snakes. It has the elongated body of a snake, but has two vestigial legs. (5)Here's a list of more transitional fossils: http://tinyurl.com...6. "...we should also stll be seeing many things in transitional forms today."This is a logical fallacy, there is no way to know what species today are "transitional" as we have no idea what they would be transitioning to. Transitional fossils are only known as transitional because we know what species there are today.7. "If there was one Creator who designed all, there should be no issue of similar DNA."Fair enough.8. "...all of the claimed "vestigial structures" are actually not useless and provide important functions."As I said before, these vestigial structures do have some functionality left, which is why they still exist. However, they are clearly not "designed" to serve the function they currently have. Also, evolution does not necessarily always mean the increase of information. 9. "Problems of Evolution" "Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information." I have already refuted this. "The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution." I have already refuted this. "The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life.""I have already refuted this. Evidence is in fossil record and comparative DNA testing. "Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;" An inefficiency doesn't suggest an impossibility. This is why it often takes millions of years for significant changes. "The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely." Not necessarily. If a trait is highly successful while being relatively simple, it stands to reason that it could evolve in multiple ancestral branches. "The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code." This isn't a problem with evolution, this is problem with the origin of life. "The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development." The developing stages of an embryo are not suggested to be proof of evolution or otherwise related to evolution. "A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA." The linked source incorrectly quotes a few sources (as well as itself strangely, it being a blog) as showing proof that "Junk DNA" is not junk at all. In reality, these sources are speaking of discoveries that some junk DNA was found to possibly have some sort of function. ENCODE project found that 80% of human DNA is functional. This means that 20% is still "junk DNA" (6) 10. "...the worldwide flood from the days of Noah." There is no known evidence of the worldwide flood, which is an impossibility as there isn't enough water on the planet to cover all of the land unless it was flat. "Polystrate fossils are trees that were fossilized and buried upright, and often traverse multiple layers of strata." There are very few upright petrified forests known to exist. Those known to exist that do traverse multiple layers like those at Yellowstone do so because they were in an area with heavy volcanic activity that repeatedly and quickly covered the area with multiple blankets of volcanic ash and mud flow. (7) "The fossils themselves prove a flood, as fossils are created because of rapid burials...." Rivers flood all the time. And it's not only flooding that can create fossils. Mud flows, volcanic activity, and other natural phenomena can cause the formation of fossils. "In mountains all over the world, we find sea shells and other marine fossils." This is because of plate tectonics. As Pangaea broke apart and other plates began to fuse together, they pushed up at the fault line and caused mountains. These areas that were once underwater were now some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. (8) "The worldwide flood would have caused rapid layers in the earth." The worldwide flood wouldn't have created any new sediment, it would have only pushed around and mixed sediment that was already on top, this would have created a single unique layer to the flood, which has never been found. (9) Sources: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com...