Evolution is realistic

First let me define evolution as: The Development of higher species (Such as humans) that have evolved (or changed) from lower species as a result of natural selection and the passing down of common genes to the next generation. (Common ideas of "evolvees" are fish, apes, and even yeasts) This is how I define evolution. It is similar to my opponents, but is specific to avoid arguing semantics. I will first make my own case, and then move on to attack my opponent's. Let me first define realistic as it pertains to the resolution. "interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical: a realistic estimate of costs; a realistic planner. " Based on this definition, one must look to whether or not evolution is "realistic." Now, to fully understand the theory of evolution, one must first have a basic understanding of genetics. Traits are passed down from one generation to the next by alleles. Alleles are located on the chromosomes, and determine the phenotype of an organism. Here is an important part: The phenotype of an organism is dependant on the genotype, or the genetic makeup of an organism. If the gene is not present, that neither can the phenotype. So, lets apply this to common evolutionary theories. One common theory is Lamarck's proposition of evolution. This basically says that phenotype is based on usage. He givs the examples of the blindness in moles, and the large claw on some crabs. Applying proven scientific facts, this cannot be true. Since phenotype is based on genotype, this cannot be the case. Another common theory is Darwin's. Similar problems occur within his theory. He says fish started walking on land, and turned into little crawlers, which turned into bigger critters, which turned into apes, which turned into humans. Again, science is against this theory. How does a fish get oxygen-competent lungs? Or even legs for that matter? How does it get toes? Lose its scales? Lose its fins? Get hair?! This is an absurd theory. Granted, neither Darwin nor Lamarck knew what we do now about genetics. They could not have know. But, with what we know for fact, these are absolutely implausible ideas. Now to address my opponent's case. --HIS FIRST POINT-- "One way for evolution to occur is through natural selection; organisms with genes that are more suitable for their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce while organisms with less suitable genes are more likely to die off before they reproduce. Next thing you know, the whole species has the suitable gene." Seems plausible enough, right? However, we must look to what he means by "suitable gene." As he is arguing FOR evolution, we can only assume that he means the formation of new genes via mutation. Now, an organism can mutate a longer neck, or stronger muscles, or a smaller beak. What an organism CANNOT mutate, is a respiratory system, organelles, and even organs for that matter! Evolution IS NOT plausible, because it contradicts scientific fact. --HIS SECOND POINT-- My opponent seems to be mis-informed about his peppered tree moths. This experiment was actually RECALLED FROM TEXTBOOKS because it was found to be a faulty experiment. The scientist actually pinned the white moths to the trees! This example is completely faulty. However, for the sake of the debate, one might assume that this could actually happen. This could actually happen. It is simple genetics, and is completely plausible. This does not further the affirmative case! This is a minor mutation, and is scientifically realistic. Take an albino lizard for example. THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. Please note that it is not the development of a higher species. Having taken down my opponent's case, I await his rebuttals. Thank you. http://www.bartleby.com... http://www.phschool.com... http://www.wikipedia.org...