Evolution theory is true

It's the first time anyone done this. Here is my argument: I believe in micro evolution which is genetic changes within a family. We do not see anything beyond this point. We don't observe one family evolving into another which would be called macro evolution. " Well of course not, but we don't need to. I'll use an analogy: Say you found a dead body with a knife in it, tied up and gagged. Is it unreasonable to infer that someone murdered the body? Same with evolution. We don't need to directly observe it happening to conclude what happened. I'll ask you the question again: What is the mechanism that prevents a species from continuing to change genetically and over time into what we could consider a different species? In other words, what stops an organism from changing genetically enough to be different from the species it branches from? "I believe fossils cannot be used as evidence for macro evolution (for the rest of the debate I'll refer macro evolution as just evolution) because one cannot prove the fossil had different offspring. My evidence against evolution is mainly two for simplicity:" No, and evolutionists aren't trying to prove that. Macroevolution is made up of micro evolutionary results, so the "different" offspring would probably be still extremely similar to its parents. Nonetheless, what you say about fossils having offspring is irrelevant because we can find other fossils further up the geological chain which are directly related to the previous fossils, meaning that at some point, some offspring with the mutated gene had to have had offspring and spread the beneficial gene. If it didn't, we wouldn't have any evidence of the change. Anyway, onto your argument: Convergent evolution Sure, but if the feature (such as flight) are,extremely useful, it will definitely pop up (figure of speech) more in organisms. But regardless, you analogy of rolling a dice the same a million times fails because your ignoring natural selection. Natural selection is like rolling a dice on number 12, so 12 pops up more after the first instance of it showing up. Once an organism evolves a feature that's useful and has offspring to pass on that gene, the whole population (eventually) will have that gene too (and any who don't, die). Flight "Flight is a very complicated mechanism especially organic flight (flight by living creatures). There must be a specific ratio on many thousands of things like bone mass, muscle mass, heart rate, blood flow, etc. this mechanism to evolve by chance or mutation is very slim on its own. " That's right, because it didn't. Wings probably weren't originally used for flight at first, but eventually became useful for flight in later generations, which would mean that it didn't all evolve for a sole reason (flight) at once. Also remember that new evolutionary traits in populations are often rudimentary, and may only help an organism with the gene only a small bit, but enough for it to eventually become dominant. I'll use an analogy: Say I had to bang a nail into a wall, but all I had was a spanner. What do I do? Use the spanner! Though it's very rudimentary, it's better than nothing. Same with evolution. You don't need a hammer to hammer a nail, just use what you have! So what I'm basically saying is that birds for instance didn't evolve all your above factors all at once but gradually and perhaps for different purposes evolved one step and a time. I don't want to waste characters, so I found a interesting and detailed article about flight in birds if your interested: . http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... Fish with antifreeze "Are we to believe that evolution created fish with antifreeze which the antifreeze itself is very similar but come from very different gene sequences? " . .. yes? I don't seem to see the problem here. Human and squid eyes "Are we to believe that by chance and mutation the eye evolved twice? " Like I said before, if a feature is extremely useful, it will be in high demand (so to speak) for organisms. Furthermore, the process to gaining sight is fairly simple (all you need are light sensitive cells and nerves). Besides, again, your ignoring the natural selection part. Evolution isn't random. Here's some good articles on it: . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://www.scientificamerican.com... . http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... Second law of thermodynamics dynamics "The law states that things tend towards disorder and become more simple. This is a law which we see everyday (your messy room for example). " Damnit. .. "Nothing can perminemtely overcome it. Those who promote evolution will say that the law can be overcome by adding energy. Using the messy room analogy one can put energy into it and clean it up. There are however two major problems to it. " 1. Raw energy is destructive I agree, which is why organisms must direct energy in a particular way. When you eat, you consume "energy" and then you release that energy by doing activities. If you fail to do this, you die. Other organisms also use the sun for energy. Nonetheless, if you shot yourself in the face, that's a lot of energy but it's misplaced, and your also dead. However, organisms direct energy in a particular way, so there is no threat of: a. Descending into disorder b. Blowing up "2. Nothing can overcome the law forever. The room, even if I left it alone, would gather dust and get musty and moldy. Any wood in my room would eventually rot. Any plastic would eventually break down and so on. " . https://m.youtube.com... Wood rots, but trees don't. .. because one is alive resisting entropy and one isn't. "So this applies to the theory of evolution. Evolution states that a single simple cell evolved into what we see today but that violates the second law of thermodynamics. When a theory conflicts with a law who wins out, the theory or the law? " Second law of thermodynamics is not violated because the energy organisms use is directed in a particular way to resist entropy. That's why you can grow from a child to an adult without rotting in the process. And besides, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which earth isn't one.