Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

It is stated by Pro that I have not been satisfactory in my duty to show scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. Though, I on the other hand think that I have done this and then some. For I have also shown how the discovery of Evolution improved science itself in many fields and opened us to many possibilities to think about the future, as well as show that we truly are creatures connected with nature itself. That we are all related and with thus, we should care for our environment, least we destroy what makes us what we are. But, environmentalism isn't the subject of this debate. I shall end my closing argument with rebutting my opponent's attempts of dismissing and dismantling my arguments. ______________________ It seems Pro is still fixated on comparing malleable organisms with strict operation machines. Yes, it might SEEM that we have delicate, fragile coding to operate in a specific way. but this is an illusion, as we organism are made to be malleable down to the genetic level. If we operated one way, for one purpose, and one way only, we would have a faulty design and die out quicker than you could say five hundred years. We design machines to not be malleable so they can effectively do their tasks in a simplistic fashion for consistent and dependable outcomes. Comparing organisms and machines is a terrible, horrible analogy. Think organic DNA coding more like writing a poem. Sure, you developed a writing style, got your own niche. But as your writing a new piece, you tripped up somewhere and added a new syllable or changed the structure of the phrase around. This in turn changes your scheme and makes you do a double back. But, come to find out, you prefer this way and alter your writing style. This happens with various artists with their writing, drawing, music making, and so forth. The evolution of art styles. That's a much more relatable and accurate analogy, rather than organisms and machines. You may disagree in the comments if you wish. Also, the idea of skin colors not being a passable mutation is hilarious. I must have forgotten the one time a white couple gave birth to a black baby while the wife wasn't sleeping around. In all seriousness, there is genetic coding traceable within Human DNA that decides skin tone which can be weaken or strengthened (look at albinos). The same is for plants, as we selectively bred bananas from their ugly brown coloring to a more appetizing yellow. And I still stand by what I said that just irradiating random things is a bad thing to do that will offer only bad results. Beneficial mutations come from various trials by fire spread out over the course of time from multiple creatures with the trait surviving and reproducing. Just zapping some poor creatures with radiation to see how they horribly mutate isn't going to get the same result. You can't force things to change at a genetic level and expect good results, that's not how nature works. Change has to take its own time. Much like politics, nothing good will come from a blood-shedding revolution, you have to shape the government from within to produce good results with more happy results. ________________________ I never mention "Creator" or anything relating because I am arguing from the evolutionary stand point, from science's stand point. Science could care less about deities because nothing ever suggests a designer or a creator. We find out the natural processes in which things occur, and we figure out how it occurs. Nothing ever has ever suggested, without context, to there being a designer/creator. The only people that insert God into the equations are the ones that want to do so. And again, we can't have genetic similarities without being related. To be genetically similar is to be genetically related. Genetics is what ties life together. I mean, sure you can have enough genetic diversity to be non-compatible. Like how we are to toxins being deadly, or how lions and tigers produce infertile offspring. But we still have some sort of similarity to a genetic level to make us relate to some degree. And once more, from a scientific standpoint, deities are irrelevant. Because nothing ever points to a designer/creator. Nothing pushes this notion other than those that want to push this notion. And I dedicated those four paragraphs to prove a point that apparently went over my opponent's head. He has, multiple times, said that we would propose Young Earth Creationism. So, for that, I waived my "no mention of Creationism" stance temporarily to show who Creationism is just a predetermined ideology asserted by primitive people who had no idea what was going on in the world around them. This is the twenty-first century, it's time we put our trust in scientists as they move our progression forward and we abandon frightful fairy tails of old. Science is learning and explaining how things came to be without having a Creator filling in the gaps of knowledge. It is still ridiculous to have a whole species worth of people to be hugely affected with rickets and arthritis in such a way and not have a larger impact. Such as other creatures getting this massive outbreak of disabilities, nor any significant imprinting of such within our own gene pool. As, with them being unlucky Homo Sapiens, surely being a part of social species such as us would allow them to still mate and have offspring. Despite the fact that we have very little evidence of such cross-breeding occurring. To rebut the dismissal of Peking and Java as simple mistakes. Do you really think we don't have means to check these sort of things to make sure that they're accurate? Comparisons to other bone structures? Scales? Various dating methods beyond just Carbon Dating? I believe my source last round will provide enough information as to how they came about identifying the subspecies of Homo Erectus. I'm not going to go into anymore detail about bacteria being a prime example of evolution we can see in a lab. Fine, whatever, agree to disagree and let your perspective to be judge. But realistically speaking, a bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a beneficial mutation for the organism overcame the challenge presented to them and survived while others of its kind died. This is survival of the fittest, doing what you can to survive. This day and age, a bacteria's greatest threat is antibiotics, if anything it's insulting that they can just get use to it and we have to up our game to get rid of such a small, single-celled organism. ____________________________ Believe has no place within science, only testing results. Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many scientists have tried since the concept of Evolution and its theory was proposed to disprove it, or at least satisfy some curiosities. And guess what happened? They came up with nothing but things to further support it, improve upon it, and integrate it into the fields of science (namely biology). To name any credible scientists to disregard Evolution as a natural phenomena and the theory as bupkis would be crucial in this argument as Evolution is set on a high pedestal within the scientific community. Pro seems to not understand how the workings of science itself works no matter how much I try to explain it. Evolution itself has many things to prove itself as a natural occurrence. Single celled organisms adapting to their environments, whale vestigial hip bones, snake limbs, and the genome projects all show this fact. And the Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time and was attacked by many tests and studies and never once got proven, without a doubt, that it was inadequate or wrong. All Pro managed to bring forward was someone asserting the "micro/macro evolution" nonsense and another one that claims evolution is useless to the field of science. Personal biases or lack of information/willful ignorance clouded their judgement or simply could not comprehend the concept at the time. _________________ In conclusion, while Pro says that I have failed to show Evolution to be a scientific theory as well as a natural occurrence, I say he has failed in disproving my arguments showing that it was. I find that I don't need to list anymore sources and am confident my sources in previous arguments will carry what I have defended here. Whether I win or lose, it does not matter. So long as I do the scientific community justice and have at least enlightened or piqued the interest of one mind out there reading this, then I am satisfied with my efforts. Hope you have learned plenty, readers. And thank you Pro for a mentally stimulating debate. Vote well.