The Theory of Evolution is Plausible

I'll begin by rebutting your arguments before moving onto my own. Firstly, your argument that the fossil record makes evolution a viable explanation for the great biodiversity we enjoy today. I would view this evidence from a very different perspective. I would, in fact, assert that the fossil evidence runs to the contrary of evolution. Fossil evidence like the archaeopteryx shows that there was once a bird with reptilian characteristics. However, if the theory of evolution was true, there would be evidence of a greater number of transitional species, as the theory of evolution is alleged to be a gradual process. As there is only evidence of one such 'transitional species', a far more rational and evidence based explanation is that the archaeopteryx was a distinct kind of animal, one that shares both avian and reptilian characteristics (though falling into the avian kingdom). Secondly, your argument that the genetic similarities between certain species proves that they evolved from a common ancestor. I would again argue that this evidence is contradictory. Are we honestly supposed to believe that because species resemble each other they must be descended from a common ancestor? The 'genetic evidence' would show close relation between chimpanzees and humans, yet there is not fossil evidence of such a creature ever having existed. This argument for evolution relies on the premise that similarity between species must mean they share a common ancestry, a pure assumption with little evidence to support it. A far better and more rational explanation would be that species are similiar because they were created similiar. Finally, your argument that we have observed natural selection. I find this particular argument to be the easiest to dispute. Your evidence was Darwin's finches. However, these finches were not of the same species. There were fifteen separate species of finch on the islands. This argument is very similiar to your second. It assumes that because these species were similiar, they must have had a common ancestor, and that their adaptions to their environment were as a result of isolation. I find this to be preposterous. The idea that different species on different islands must have been the same species and adapted is another pure assumption. It is a flawed notion. Surely, when this 'common ancestor' arrived on a new island with a different method of hunting food required, they would have been ill-adapted, and perished? The evolutionary counter argument to this, that mutations caused one particular bloodline to survive, is equally preposterous. Either evolution is gradual, in which case the minute differences in beak structure of a mutation amongst the colonising population would have made no difference, or evolution is sudden and dramatic, in which case, the creation of an entirely new species occurred in one generation and just happened to coincide with the bird's colonisation of a new island. The former would have led to the death of the birds and so evolution would have been impossible, and the latter is impossible, as we would have evidence of inter-generational speciation in species today, which has never been observed. Now of course, to assert that evolution is an invalid explanation for biodiversity requires one to provide a different narrative. I would propose that the best explanation for bio diversity, the only explanation in my opinion, is that all species on this earth were created by a supreme being. This explains biodiversity. This overcomes a major flaw of the theory of evolution, namely the origin of life itself. And finally, it is supported by the evidence. However, this debate is about the plausibility of evolution, not the plausibility of intelligent design. I believe I have, in this round, proven evolution implausible. However, I eagerly await your rebuttal.