Evolution is False

Unfortunately my opponent's argument consists almost entirely of quoted material. Normally this should cost him the debate but I shall continue with my rebuttal because it amuses me to do so.Rebuttal"If such radiations are likely to cause you to evolve, and develop new beneficial futures, then you should seek to be bombarded as much as possible by these sources of radiation. Maybe you could get a new eye in the back of your head. In reality, if you are smart, you will avoid such radiations, because they are much more likely to damage you than to improve you."This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of evolution. Here are some reasons why:1. Natural evolution utilizes normal mutations. It does not need radiation.2. Evolution takes place over generations, not immediately. It cannot change preexisting organisms.3. Evolution does not seek to make anything better, nor does it have any kind of goal in mind. The only "improvements" it does is to make the organisms in question more adapted to survive in the environment in which they exist. This is a result of natural selection, not mutation. Mutation simply provides material for selection to choose."All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. All the mental and physical defects described in medical textbooks as examples of mutation such as Down syndrome, albinism or dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer."I mean the natural mutations that everyone has. The mutations that you described are much bigger than normal ones, and are abnormalities. They are not examples of evolution."DNA has a very complex order, and so any random effects in this molecule can only damage the organism."So why does every one of us have so many natural mutations? [1.http://www.talkorigins.org...]"mutations caused by DNA copying errors would have a similar result. . . mutations are harmful by a ratio of at least 10,000 to one.231"No. Here are some examples that prove you wrong."1. Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon.2. Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones.3. Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS or to heart disease.4. A mutation in humans makes bones strong.5. Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity.6. In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme."[2.http://www.talkorigins.org...]"To carry out an analogous experiment, ask a large history of the world to be written down on a computer. While this is being done, ask the person setting the text to press one key at random, with his eyes shut. Then ask someone else to do the same thing to the already corrupted text.Have the text copied over several thousand times from beginning to end in exactly this manner, adding a few random letters in each time.Is this going to improve our history of the world? Could you end up with a chapter about "The History of Ancient China" that had not been there before?These letters added on cannot, of course, improve the book in any way; on the contrary, they will impair its readability. The more often we perform the copying process, the more imperfect the book that results.The claim made by the theory of evolution, however, is to the effect that spelling mistakes improve a book."Your analogy makes the mistake of assuming that the goal of evolution was always to eventually create a human being. This is a strawman. Evolution is not conscious, and cannot plan ahead for the future. It works by adapting organisms to their present environment and according to their relationship with other organisms of which it interacts. This is why your analogy fails.However, if I would assume that being in coherent English was the evolutionary pressure on the book, then the analogy still fails, because it leaves out the process of natural selection entirely! We can even see selection at work in languages, with more easily pronounced words or popular phrases altering the dictionary as time progresses. Your analogy helps my argument."Dawkins stumped by creationis-www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g"Unfortunately I am currently utilizing a public Wi-Fi which filters out YouTube, and am unable to view the video. However, I have heard of such a video, and assume it to be the same one you are currently using as evidence. If that is indeed the case, it has been throughly debunked. Look at the video I have posted.http://www.youtube.com...Previous arguments1. I gave examples of evolution in action. You ignored it.2. I rebutted his point on creatures being unable to transform into another species. You ignored it.3. I pointed out that mutations do add information. You ignored it.4. I pointed out that no evolutionist claimed that evolution was conscious. You ignored it.5. I demonstrated how "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved, and have shown how you took Darwin out of context. You ignored it. Indeed, you seem to have ignored the previous round entirely and have copied brand new random arguments from arbitrary sources. I hope you will not repeat this in the next round.I now turn the debate over to Pro.