Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

My esteemed opponent has wasted characters while laboring under the false assumption that I know not certain observable scientific fact. I am fully aware of all of the facts that he has presented. I am also fully aware of the interpretation and how it is absurdly false. My opponent, has rather unfortunately, mixed up nested hierarchy, single nested hierarchy, and twin nested hierarchy. In his attempt to answer my arguments, he has proffered three subtypes of nested hierarchy. As I will show following, they not only are red herrings in that they give the illusion of knowledge, they also do not address my arguments in the slightest.Wnope has accused me somewhat tediously of having only four major points within a single argument. His attack on my arguments regarding the fossil record is centered around the ludicrous notion that “assigning fossils to a strata is not part of the evidence implied by the twin nested hierarchy...”If the reader is observant, not only will he note that my arguments amount to the number of two, which indicates that my respected opponent knows not the “actual math,” but that although similar, my arguments are actually separate. It is beyond my knowledge to place this lack of rudimentary knowledge on my opponent’s part to lack of experience in debating or sheer ignorance.My opponent has, somewhat preposterously, claimed that I have not cited the full article! This article in question I am assuming is my ref. 5 from the previous round. Well, my worthy opponent seems to ignore the very later part of the paragraph, which I will now quote for greater clarity and to show that, No! My statements are not contradicted by the article. Not one bit. It is also unfortunate that my opponent has omitted very contradictory portions of the article to what he has quoted. The very paragraph and following the quote goes like this: “...But the real issue is not whether complexity can increase by pure chance during evolution; it is whether natural selection is driving organisms toward greater complexity. In other words, the issue is whether a complex animal is a more successful animal. Boyajian and Lutz tested that issue directly. If the hypotheses out there were right, there should be a correlation between how long something lived and its complexity, Boyajian says. In ammonoids a more complex septum might improve the animal’s survival odds by strengthening the shell (just as corrugations strengthen cardboard). If so, then all other things being equal, a more complex ammonoid ought to have survived longer in the fossil record than a simple one. Yet when Boyajian and Lutz examined how long each of their 615 ammonoids had lasted, they found no benefit in complexity. Complex or simple, very few ammonoid genera lasted more than 15 million years, says Boyajian. And those that did weren’t necessarily the most complex ones. So complexity didn’t help them, but it didn’t hurt them either. The complexity of ammonoid sutures, it seems, is the result of random variation rather than natural selection...” (Ibid) (Emphasis mine)It seems that my esteemed opponent, in a rush to discredit my arguments, has committed a suicidal argument.Now that I have sufficiently defended my arguments, showing that my reputed opponent has not at all addressed them, I will address all of his arguments. A-C. Phylogenetic, Molecular, and Twin Nested HierarchyIn my opponent’s desire to make me wet my pants, he has unfortunately and unprofessionally thrown sources at me. To prove my point, I need only quote one portion, “...By measuring the degree of cladistic hierarchy structure in a phylogeny, it has been determined multiple times that the nested hierarchy is not subjective (like categorizing cars) but instead objective (like categorizing languages). (3,4,5)...” See there? Now he can say with confidence, Oh! I win on sources, you creationist! Going on to the main argument, my opponent has contrasted this with my cars argument from the previous round. Now my opponent, in his eagerness, has left himself open. The observant reader will be aware that I have already given an “objective hierarchy” of cars. Hence, if my patently absurd argument about cars is false, then it logically follows that his is as well. My opponent does not do well to try to hide from this obvious point. He has also not given any idea to the reader of how categorizing languages and cars are any different! Perhaps he means to say something else?My opponent, even worse, has not provided one instance by which nested hierarchies can be falsified. Perhaps this is his falsification criteria: “Even more daunting, EVERY POSSIBLE SUB-SET of taxa must have a consistent twin nested hierarchy.” What my opponent has failed to note, and I believe wants readers to remain ignorant of the following.My obviously false car example is such a strong example of the failure twin nested hierarchy that my opponent continues to ignore the point. He has absolutely no evidence by which molecular changes can lead bacterium to homo sapiens.Wnope has, rather sadly, given himself over to the technical without being technical enough. He has, in his desire to prove his point, not provided one factual biological twin nested hierarchy. All his technical bluster is purely that! I would encourage readers not to be dismayed by his seeming great knowledge, as it is purely hypothetical.He has, moreover, contradicted himself very efficiently. In retrospect, I should have just concentrated on this contradiction and show how his arguments are suicidal, but I have already typed out the previous. What is this contradiction in Wnope’s argument?Let us look at his arguments, “This is because evolutionary gradualism is "stochastic and memoryless" instead of directed by some higher being (i.e. Intelligent Design) or arranged by some random ordering of animals that look alike (subjective hierarchies).”So, he himself admitted randomness not requiring greater complexity. However, he has urged that humans evolved from lesser complex creatures. Combine this with the second portion of the article paragraph he was partially quoting and viola, we have a contradiction! Note that creationists have something called the "Orchard of Life," which contradicts the "Tree of Life." What my worthy opponent has described can be explained easily by means of the OoL.Conclusion:My opponent has, it seems, unwittingly failed to answer any of my arguments. He claims that they are irrelevant to the debate, but cannot substantiate that claim! He has thrown sources and numbers at me in the hope that I wet my pants. This strategy is not even failing! My opponent has somewhat glaringly not given any factual biological instances whereby we can know for sure that twin nested hierarchy can prove that bacterium evolved into homo sapiens. Since he’s all so sure about the evidence being on his side, why is there not even one example? One example? Hmm?I find no need of sources because my opponent has thrown all I need at me. Besides, I’m logically tearing his arguments to shreds.I would advise my opponent to actually respond to my arguments, either to show how they are irrelevant, or actually address them. As of now, his round amounts to nothing.