Evolution is a sound scientific concept

Standards of LogicMy opponent asks that we use logic for this debate. I agree with this, as this is obviously needed for intelligent debate and discussion. However, I ask where my opponent gets his standard for logic. Allow me to expound on what I mean by this:Logic is reasoning conducted in order to discover objective truth. However, as Darwin stated, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (1) This is to say, if logic is just a human concept; a societal construct, and we are animals that are here by the means of chance and evolution, how can we trust our mind? Why should we trust the way that we perceive reality? How do we know that our minds are rational? What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism for our survival?On the other hand, if a being exists that trancends our universe, one who has a rational and intelligent mind, and then created mankind to be rational, then based on this paradigm, logic is a trustworthy mechanism for understanding truth.As shown, the preconception that logic is trustworthy and rational only works under a theistic paradigm. Now, one can claim that there is no god, and our perceptions are just us observing reality, but ultimately, we can never have any amount of confidence in anything. Rather, if one concludes that logic is trustworthy, then one must conclude that God does exist, and would in turn further deduce that it is possible that a god did not need to create a universe depending on the General Theory of Evolution, as society sees it today.Definitions and UnderstandingsMutations- A change in or the process of changing, e.g. nature, form or quality. (2)Natural Selection- A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations. (3)There are those who do not adhere to the General Theory of Evolution (Both theists and agnostics have been known to doubt Evolutionary theory). With this body of Evolution doubters, we do not say that mutations and natural selection does not happen. We know that new species can be created. For example, we see many types of dogs, and over time speciation occurs. With dog breeding, we can use natural selection to keep the traits that are desired, and produce the traits that are unfavorable. However, natural selection only selecs information that is already there. It does not account for a mechanism that can produce a new kind of animal. Mutations can alter the genetic code, mostly in harful ways, but there are some instances where it may produce a new function. But this new function is only relatable to the organism. That is to say, imagine a mouse gaining a function to help it battle off a certain diseaes. This new function relies on the system of the organism, but if the mouse were to receive mutations that altered the genetic code to account for, let's say wings, this would be of no use for the organism, as it's system is not built for that type of function. And this is where my party and Evolutionists disagree. They say that with enough time and new functions, a new kind of animal will be created, but my party would say that mutations have a limit to how much they can change an organism, and no matter how much time, we would never see one kind of animal change into another. Evolutionary MisunderstandingsThe basic conception that the general public holds of evolution is that the fossil record proves evolution and that all organisms were created by mutations and natural selection. However, this layman conception is entirely false (I am not using the fallacy of authority, rather, I am presenting testimonies of scientists in their field who have actually studied this information. I hold these testimonies as trustworthy):"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." (Evolutionary Paleontologist David Raup) (4)"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species,. That's a common idea people have, that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is <not> the cause of evolutionary change." -Gould, evolutionary biologist (5)Another issue with The Theory Evolution is the common belief that there are many transitionary fossils. Evolution relies on transitionary fossils, and without it, the theory would crumble. The uneducated public assumes that scientists have found many tranistionary fossils, as can be seen on wikipedia (6)"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record. Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks." (Gould) (7)Now, Gould said this in 1980, so evolutionists since then have tried very hard to make it seem as though there are transitionary fossils. The problem with this is, there is no transitionary fossil that isn't disputed among scientists. Also, most of the claimed transitionary fossils are really no more than some pieces of skeletons that are claimed to be part of a whole transitional creature. Each claim for each single transitionary fossil can be disrpoven. Now, evolutionists won't appreciate this skepticism. Fine, even if we allowed for a hundred or so tranistional fossils, it wouldn't matter. The Theory of Evolution demands millions of them. This is not the case. This is why Gould was more convinced of puncuated equilibria than Darwin's gradualism. (Not that I am arguing for puncuated equilibria, this theory itself has it's own issues, but I am not currently debating this topic, so I will leave it at that).Time is Not the Hero of the PlotSome Evolution doubters are Theists who uphold a view that there was a worldwide flood around the time of Noah, some 4300 years ago. This would account for many of the geological layers forming rapidly, not over millions of years. Here are some examples of different dating methods and evidences of this:When a balloon is filled up with helium, over time the helium escapes the balloon and it eventually fails to continue floating. The same is true with zircon crystals. They contain helium molecules, and by measuring the amount of time it takes for the helium to escape, we can estimate how old the zirocn crystals are. The issue is, these crystals are in rocks that were dated as 1.5 billions years ago by evolutionists. However, the helium dating showed that the rocks could from 4 to 8 thousand yearls old (8)Today’s measured half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. This means that we should not find any trace of Carbon 14 in anything over one million years old. However, many evolutionists find Carbon 14 in many things, and immediately claim it was contaminated, not wanting to admit that their standard dating methods are not reliable or accurate. (9)Evolution's Biggest ProblemEvolution requires abiogenesis, that is, life arriving from non-living materials. There was an experiment by Miller-Urey (10), but this experiment did not meet the requirements of the atmosphere of ancient earth. Scientists are now realizing that abiogenesis on earth was impossible, and are now looking at optioins such as panspermia and life from Mars (11).We know that life cannot arise from non-life. We have no evidence for life coming from anywhere else. Without a starting point, evolution cannot happen. Since abiogensis is impossible, we can easily conclude that the General Theory of Evolution is impossible. ConclusionEvolution is irrational, it gives us no reason to trust logic, and the theory only survives on wishful thinking.(1) http://www.goodreads.com...(2) http://www.biology-online.org...(3) http://www.biology-online.org...(4) Science July 17 1981 p.289, David Raup(5) MUTATIONS ARE NON-PRODUCTIVE , STEPHEN J. GOULD, HarvardLecture, Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980(6) http://en.wikipedia.org...(7) Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company(8) http://www.icr.org...(9) http://www.icr.org...(10) http://people.chem.duke.edu...(11) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...