evolution is false

Refutations "First off I will point out my opponents disregard for macroevolution which utterly disproves his entire point. Also..." What in the world is this? How can you say that me not saying much about macroevolution means evolution is false? You don't prove it and you move on very, very quickly to another argument. "Plus apes have twenty four pairs of chromosomes while a human has twenty three pairs, would you consider this a subtle genetic change?" Why does it matter if it's subtle or not? "To begin with wouldn't it have taken very long periods of time in order to fully develop those wings to be able to use them to fly correct?" Yes, it would take a long period of time. Evolution doesn't happen instantly. But, that is besides the point. My opponent has offered these numerous questions as a shield for what he asked at first. Why did birds evolve wings? Because wings gave them advantages over other creatures. They can fly and pick off insects, reach fruit, and sip nectar. I don't see how your questions disprove evolution anyway. When did natural selection state that birds with wings will die? They developed wings to get away from predators because very few predators fly, only other birds [1]. Natural selection states that the weakest animals of a species die off, whereas the strongest carry their traits on to their offspring. Clearly, the birds have survived, and the trait of the wings has been a strong factor in their survival. "What do seashells have to do with it those seashells and every other fossil record shows no signs of alteration. Why don't we see the shells turning into fish? all you would find is shells and fish but nothing in between." Again, other cover-up. My opponent lets off on one argument, only to ask another question, hoping that I would fail in the response. And he even decides to make the falsified claim that you find shells and fish, but nothing between the two. Fish have changed throughout the millions of years so much. From jawless, armored Ostracoderms to bottom-dwelling, jawed Placoderms to our modern Osteichthyes fish [2]. Fish have been changing for years and years and will continue to. "That is besides the point none of these are the missing link you are avoiding my point and your point should be disregarded as irrelevant. Also you are using wikipedia and wikipedia can be altered by anyone who can read HTML and therefore none of your points can be proven true because your using an unreliable source." How is it besides the point? How am I avoiding your point at all? You stated there were no fossil records of any evolution. I said no, and gave a list throughout my entire argument. How do you know none of these are the missing link? Lucy is a ancestor of man and Iceman was the remnants of a human long ago. Have you never heard of anybody calling Lucy the missing link? She if often associated with it. Wikipedia is a fine source, so long as it possess sources. If you look at the Wikipedia I cited, you will find that there are 275 sources. Tell me that's not valid! "Yes that is evolution, microevolution that is, which says that like you said is just subtle changes, which is true, there will be subtle changes you can't get around that so I will say that I didn't mention that I do believe in microevolution, but the moth is still a moth it did not turn into a canary. Once again you have totally ignored macroevolution." Microevolution is evolution. If my opponent wants evidence that macroevolution exists, I shall supply. First of all, we there are transitional fossils, such as the famous Archeopteryx. I retained more qualities of theropod dinosaurs than it did of birds [3]. Ambulocetus is known as the "walking whale", it had attributes of a crocodile and showed the transition of a land-mammal to a whale [4]. In fact, just a thorough examination of the evolution of the horse, the most updated and completed evolutionary lineage of any other animal, shows many clear examples of transitional fossils. "I have absolutely no reason to believe this. Why did they become sterile? And how did that alter the species in any way shape or form?" This is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group. "If we branched off from apes six million years ago why didn't Neanderthals exist until 230,000 years ago? And why don't we have fossils of creatures that are imbetween apes and men?" It's a long line of evolution, of course. Neanderthals are some of our closest relatives, and apes our farthest. But we still came from apes nonetheless, as our genetic material is very similar. If you browse through the site I will soon list, you will find the fossils and evidence of evolution through man [5]. "Well if we have a common ancestor why do any of those creatures exist? If we evolved from them then why didn't they all just become humans and then die off because the evolved into humans? If an ape turned into a man then there is no point in an ape because it became a man it is imperfect and should have died off because of this." All creatures live in different environments. Creatures must learn to adapt well and sufficiently to survive in their environment. Some species die out like the dodo bird, out of sheer idiocy. Evolution is not always for the better. Apes can still survive because they are well-adapted to their environment. It's not like everytime something evolves, it's former self will just die off. There are still, to this day, creatures that evolved from another animal that still lives. My opponent has cited absolutely no sources and most of his points are not credible. He insults me by saying that I have learned nothing and blatantly responded with sheer ignorance. If you want to challenge me to an insult fight, go ahead, do it. But in this debate, poor conduct goes against you. Sources: 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://www.lookd.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.livescience.com...