Evolution is not a viable origin model

My opponent misunderstands me. 'Science' is a peer reviewed science publication. I did not mean, as my opponent seems to think, that 'science' as an entity published the study.http://en.wikipedia.org...(journal) As for"more proof" I have explained the counter evidence and given him the source, but I'll give him a couple more just to be safe. I will note that peer review has shown my opponents claims to be false so his sources are therefore less credible, but that is besides the point. Our sources disagree, but that does not mean evolution is not viable. It just means my opponent's sources are wrong.http://www.gate.net... http://apps.usd.edu...Transitional Fossils (partially recycled from a previous, relevant debate)1. http://en.wikipedia.org...... 2. http://www.transitionalfossils.com...... 3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu......4. http://www.transitionalfossils.com...... 5. http://rationalwiki.org...... Transitional fossils are the 'links' between things we have seen in the fossil record and things we see today. They also show links between species we see very early in the fossil record and fossils we see later in the record. I don't know how better to explain transitional fossils besides to say examples that are present and link the sources, so I guess that's what I'll do. 1 specific link for a change from an older species and a current species is gray whales. There is a fossil which shows the transition from pakietus to gray whale. The transitional fossil shows which shows the nostril moving up the skull, which was a major change between the pakietus and the whale (3). This is just one of many examples of transitional fossils that have been found. There are also extensive fossils of fish in transition land (2), and more than a few fossils of our ape ancestors transitioning to humans. There are also examples of transitions of dinosaurs into birds (2,4) and reptiles to mammals (2,5). To say that there is no evidence of transition is simply untrue. I do not want to explain all of them, but if you are so inclined feel free to look at them, they certainly do exist and they certainly do prove evolution.What's more is that we have seen species changing in nature. We have seen one species become another. That's about as evolution prove-y as it gets. Here a couple examples (also used in a previous debate, if that counts against me, which I doubt it does).Fruit Flies (5.3.1 of above link)http://www.talkorigins.org...... Two biologists, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, made a new strain of fruit fly by breeding Drosophila paulistorum flies in a lab. A new strain was born of a female of the old strain and after reproducing with hybrids the new Llanos strain was unable to have fertile offspring with the original Orinocan strain. From one species of fly came another, and then there were 2. London Mosquitohttp://phylointelligence.com...... http://knowledgenuts.com...... A new species of mosquito evolved when isolated in the London underground system. After becoming isolated in the underground the mosquito adapted to the new environment, which was much different than above ground. It was first reported in 1999 but may have existed much earlier without being documented. 2 completely different species of mosquito!Some Scottish flowers https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...... It's easier to see speciation in plants than in more complex organisms because they can reproduce independently, making it much easier to pass on mutations to offspring. In Scotland, mimulus has two forms, guttatus and luteus with 14 and 30 pairs of chromosomes respectively. A new strain peregrinus has appeared and is different than the hybrids of guttatus and luteus. When it self reproduces enough to have a large population it will be a new species. Those are just a few of very many examples of speciation that confirms evolution, not to mention the loads of observed changes within species (commonly called microevolution) which even creationists acknowledge as having happened. So between the fossils and the observed speciation it is pretty clear that evolution is a viable model with lots of proof.I'd like to add that as of now my opponent has done nothing to disprove evolution except make an unsubstantiated claim that has been disproved, and as he at least shares BOP he has yet to fulfill his responsibility of showing evolution not viable.