Evolution has impossibilities and contradicitions.

"[Darwin's] main goal it seems, was to explain how the diversities of life arose, but not how it got here." That's what he did, yes. "I believed that was part of what I was debating, the origin of species." No. Perspectives, of course, vary and are biased. We should be using the definition given to us by the dictionary. That is what we are debating, not the origin of species. Evolution does not propose the beginning of life.ï¿½ï¿½My opponent seems to be arguing beliefs that are purported by more, uh, radical evolutionists when, in fact, modern day believers and purveyors, like the Pope for one, ï¿½share the same views now that we have refined and polished it. I can't help but notice that you are a creationist...Would the ï¿½Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches accept evolution if it conflicted with their ideology? Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it well – "Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth" "However, the above doesn't matter, for my main arguments are here in this round."ï¿½ My opponent concedes that his last argument is irrelevant. Right then. Moving on. Rebuttals Contention 1: "The main suggestion against evolution here is the fact that there are no transitional fossils found here." It seems that, if I show that there is at least a possibility of evolutionary process-- that it is not impossible, this argument will fall flat.ï¿½There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.'[1] "The Phylum Chordata is the most complex animal group of all and includes fish and mammals. So the chordates were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory." The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.ï¿½ 'In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.' Well, sure. If it's a newly discovered species, I don't see ï¿½the problem. It'd be convenient if, for every uncovered species, they died right next to their ancestors. It doesn't exclude the possibility of there being any ancestors, just that we have yet to find them. Contention 2: I don't know know what my opponent's intention was in broaching the peppered-moth experiments, as it is a valid example of natural selection.ï¿½The peppered-moths experiment was simply that, an excellent example of natural selection,[2]not some groundbreaking evolutionary happening.ï¿½So I don't see the point in arguing over whether this represents macroevolution since I haven't heard people making this claim. The point was that beneficial mutation mutations can occur and this provides an example of one. Contention 3: "'No transitional structures consisting of feathers that are part feather and part scale, or even feathers that are less than modern types, have ever been uncovered'" My opponent is asking for a fossil mid-transformation which, while I can't supply, can explain why I don't need them. Evolutionary theory has never relied on "a slow progression of fossils" as its only proof. Where evolutionary changes exist in the fossil record thpey do form one piece of evidence for evolution, but the absence of a particular link in the fossil record can't disprove evolution. Imagine you are following an animal trail and it comes to the edge of a river. You cross the river and find the same trail on the other side. Does the fact that there were no footprints in the water prove the animal doesn't exist? You can never rely on a fossil record being complete but as it's not the only evidence for evolution it doesn't matter. Source: 1.http://www.mendeley.com... 2.http://www.millerandlevine.com...