The Theory of Evolution

The intention of this debate is to carry on where another debate on the topic left off. I'm challenging the original con for the debate to see what arguments he can make against the Theory of Evolution, since his challenger seemed to not have been able to make any arguments/rebuttals against him. I had already made rebuttals to my opponent's claims in the comments of the last debate (which I'll leave a link to at the bottom of this post). I'll post them here, and consider this the start of the debate. My opponent may post his rebuttal or offer an entirely new argument afterwards. His arguments were mainly against the Evolution of whales (Cetaceans) and their ancestors (Archaeoceti), another claiming that animals we've seen trapped in amber are the same as they are today, and another argument against the development of organs. These were my rebuttals to his points, in order of how I posted them: "there was no blowhole" There was actually, it was just still at the end of the snout. Pakicetus' nostrils only later went further up the head in later transitions. The nostrils would move farther and farther back. "there were no flippers (only hooves)" True, but you ever realize something about a whale's flippers? Go ahead and look up a diagram of a whale skeleton, and look at the flippers. You'll see that they're not like regular flipper bones. Instead, the bones look a lot like hand bones. If Evolution were true, we'd expect to see this in animals that transitioned from land to sea. And another thing, we also know through genetics that the closest living relatives to whales are Hippos, which are hoofed land animals. And there are sea mammals that currently still retain vestiges of hooves. For example, the manatee still has fingernails. "And besides, we are supposed to ignore the most obvious detractor of darwinism: creatures hundreds of millions of years old in perfect preserved condition trapped in amber that look exactly like they look today." Well, I wouldn't expect anything else for insects, arachnids, and other small creatures. They're the animals that we most often see trapped in Amber. And I imagine that they have changed. Remember, evolution says that animals will change over time. But this doesn't mean that they're forced to change dramatically, even over the largest time scales. Environmental pressures and natural selection are always in play, and if you have the perfect adaptations for your environment then you're not going to change very much. Also, the majority of the species of animals that you see trapped in amber (if not all of them) don't exist anymore. So while these animals retain a similar shape, they are NOT what we have today. And to say otherwise is not only wrong, but dishonest. And one more thing: "This turns a blind eye to the proccess that would have to take place to get organs, working internal systems, eyes, male and females of same species in real time together with working reproductive systems completely different from one another, a brain, consciousness, systems in place for hearing, breathing, seeing, mating, feeling, etc, the first theoretical "self replicating molecule, etc." All of the things you described here, would have developed before the animals. Male and females would have developed before dogs existed, contrary to what Ray Comfort says. They would have been developed in earlier organisms as a way to better to produce more complex ones through the mixing of different genes. I recommend watching these videos on the evolution of sex from Aron Ra: Sexual vs Asexual Reproduction- https://youtu.be... Evolution of Sex- https://youtu.be... ______________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Arguments; I'd like to add to the first part of the rebuttal I made. After Pakicetus, the next transition is Ambulocetus. "The fossils for this animal showed that it was in the water habitually but could still come onto land. After that is Rhodocetus, which the fossils show the nostrils not only being back a bit further, but also in a depression. This is indicative of muscles to close the nostrils under pressure, like a modern whale's blowhole. Next you'd have Dorudon and Basilosaurus, representing the split between whales and dolphins. The nostrils in these animals are still forward of the eyes, but are no longer out on the end of the snout." Source for the information presented in this additional argument is a video from Aron Ra (who holds an A.Sc. in Paleontology from the University of Texas in Dallas), which I'll link below to the exact starting time where this information comes from. https://youtu.be... Link to the original debate: http://www.debate.org... I hope this debate can be enlightening for my opponent, and open his mind to this amazingly fascinating theory.