Theory of evolution

==Rebuttals== a) Fossils My opponent ignores the evidence I have provided, but offers a counterpoint: The trilobite. This example, however, is based on a book published in the 80s and, therefore, does not include modern science. The quote claims that complex life began in the Cambrian explosion. This is incorrect. Evolution occurred at an accelerated rate in the Cambrian explosion, but multicellular life did in fact exist in the precambrian. Multicellular life has been identified before the Cambrian in Southern China. Although the authors do say it *could* be nonorganic in origin, the evidence suggests that there were “structures that greatly resemble gastrula stage embryos of modern bilaterian forms” [1]. In other words, the fact that there was multicellular life before the Cambrian explosion offers evidence to the fact that the complex structures created in the Cambrian did have some more primitive ancestors a few million years before the trilobite evolved. Unlike what my opponent’s source claims, this multicellular life did not spontaneously show up. Simple life in the precambrian evolved into simple multicellular life, and then became complex in the Cambrian explosion. Evidence does NOT show that life appeared, the fossil record shows a slow increase in complexity, and an accelerated rate in evolution in the Cambrian--and the Cambrian does in fact have a lot of transitional fossils. The fact is, the more research is done, the fewer gaps there are. Precambrian life is more complex than previously thought, and therefore provides a stepping stone for the explosion to occur--which included the trilobites. Sponges, corals, jellyfish, anemones all have been found to exist in the precambrian oceans [2]. In fact, research has found the origins of body parts of early fish and insects from these simple precambrian animals [3]. So, overall, the cambrian explosion supports evolutionary theory, it does not disprove it. Further, to claim that scientists are fully ignorant of a common ancestor does not disprove evolution. Uncertainty does not indicate that evolution is incorrect. And again, the source my opponent is using is severely outdated as there have been amazing progress in the evidence for evolution. Evidence published 14 years after my opponents source was published has found a plethora of evidence regarding the ancestors of the trilobite. Its features do NOT show a trilobite coming from nothing. Not to mention the statement that no fossils have been found is a flat out lie (a quick search in google scholar got me studies from the 70s about precambrian fossils). Regardless, there is evidence that species such as bomakellia kelleri existed before the trilobite. These animals had trilobite shape and other aspects similar to that of a trilobite. It is suggested that these could be an evolutionary predecessor to the trilobite [4]. The fact is, the fossil record overwhelmingly supports evolution. Even though some areas are still under question, that does not disprove evolution. It merely shows the record is incomplete. And this record is completed more every day, and citing a book published in the 1980s does not include the modern science. b) Ostrich An leftover adaptation, as I explained, suggests previous macroevolution from a bird with the ability of flight. Therefore, my argument of vestiges and atavisms must be refuted, not waved off as you simply do. c) Small changes This always has puzzled me… My opponent and other creationists claim small scale changes occur, but a large one cannot. However, can't multiple small changes lead to a large change? A small change in DNA is extremely significant: as stated, we are only about 1% different genetically to a chimpanzee. Therefore, wouldn’t small changes over time lead to a different specie? Evolution isn’t a 10 year jump from reptile to mammal, but a process of slow change between the species, and the mechanism for this is natural selection. So, if small changes exist, I really don’t see why those small changes wouldn’t lead up to a large change. Acceptance of microevolution essentially concedes that macroevolution could (and has) occured. Conclusion My opponent has ignored the majority of what I have said and has responded to a small portion of my argument. And even then, I refute his arguments. Further, he offers no evidence as to why evolution is false! He only responds to what I argue. I will again quote one of the leading creationists as to the evidence of atavisms and vestiges, “[vestiges and atavisms offer a] serious challenge to … [the] creation model”. And my opponent essentially drops those two arguments! At this point, I hope I have enlightened my opponent and other well-meaning creationists who simply are unaware of the modern science. The evidence is overwhelming: Evolution exists. 1 - Chen, J.-Y. et al. “Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, (2000), pp. 4457-4462. 2 - https://biologos.org... 3 - Douglas H. Erwin and Eric H. Davidson, “The Last Common Bilaterian Ancestor,” Development 129 (2002), pp. 3021-32. 4 - Waggoner, Benjamin. “Phylogenetic Hypotheses of the Relationships of Arthropods to Precambrian and Cambrian Problematic Fossil Taxa,” Systematic Biology, Vol. 45, No. 2, (Jun., 1996), pp. 190-222.