Theory of evolution is valid

Until you can provide a credible, scientific journal with a decent amount of citations which goes over why DNA intrinsically contains code, you have no argument. No, LiveScience isn't credible either. I"ve told you that DNA is simply reacting molecules and our way of interpreting that these, is simply that; an interpretation. DNA does not intrinsically contain code, and until you can give competent evidence for this, you are running out of fumes. The only times you will see DNA being referred to as "code" is in tutorials to the subject, lay sources and of course, creationist pseudo-science. Lay sources are good for an introduction to the topic, or a general background info, but if you want to delve deeper, you need to give good sources. If you want to extrapolate from that drought on the Daphne Major and state that evolution didn't happen because of droughts all around the world (which you are implying), you need evidence for this extrapolation. I will not repeat myself again. In regards to the Darwin quote-mine you committed, I find it odd how you think that simply regurgitating the same brutalization of said quote, is any competent rebuttal at all. You sourced this from Creation.com, and as a result you screwed yourself. I will copy and paste the rest of the quote (again, which you oh so conveniently left out). "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." As can be seen in that part of the quote, which you left out, Darwin then goes on to describe how the difficulty of explaining the complexity of the eye, can hardly be seen real when gradations occur. You have not read the Origin of Species, obviously since if you had, you would realise that Darwin constantly makes these sorts of rhetorical statements throughout his work. In order to make your arguments seem "robust," you have to resort to cutting out relevant context from a person's work which is widely renowned; and that's just dishonest. Like I said before, if you are going to quote something, make sure you read the actual work you are quoting from, and not from a creationist hack of a website. Otherwise, you find yourself in the position that you are now. You've been caught out quote-mining, and the best you have to offer as a "refutation" is repeating your same, debunked quote-mine. Honestly, if I didn't find your wilful ignorance so saddening, I probably would have burst out laughing by your sad attempt to try and justify this. Being ignorant is one thing, but refusing to admit that you are in fact wrong on this, is not meritorious. No-one is stating that every step has been found, nor will it ever be. We do not need to find every missing link to know that evolution has taken place. That's an absolutely impossible standard to set anyways. It's a simplified version of how eyes progressed, yes, but it does eviscerate your "argument" from complexity. Whilst all you have done here is scream to the rooftops about how complex the eyes are, I've actually given evidence to support the claim that this was a gradation. "That journal "PRESUMES" how early organisms evolved photoreceptors.." You need to give evidence of that assertion. As for your claim that I have the burden of proof that hard bodied organisms fossilize better than soft-bodied organisms, that is correct. Don't know why this needs to be covered as it's so basic, but feel free to read below quote; "The lack of hard parts in Soft-bodied organisms makes them extremely rare in the fossil record. Accordingly, the evolutionary history of many of the soft-bodied groups are poorly known. The first major find of fossil soft-bodied animals was from the Burgess Shale in Canada. Today, several sites with Burgess Shale type preservation are known, but the history of many groups of soft-bodied animals is still poorly understood" [1] I would like to point out that Con is trying to derail the topic of this debate. As I have told Con in the comments, we are discussing evolution; not star formation, not black holes, and most certainly not the universe. Because these subjects are entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, there will not be discourse around cosmogony or astrophysics for that matter either. I would also like to point out that whilst Con has been domineering and bumptious, I have refrained from lowering myself to such egregious displays. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...