Theory of evolution is valid

Surprisingly enough, I don't have a problem with your definitions, so we can move right on forward. Cosmic rays can damage DNA, that is correct, but mutations are not solely reliant on damage caused due to sun exposure; blue eyes are a mutation for instance; mutations can be caused due to a variety of circumstances; I'm not entirely sure why you are bringing up the sun in this argument. I will touch on your use of the word, "randomness" further on in this discussion. Before we move onto the arguments phase, it unfortunately needs to be brought up that Con frivolously disregarded the rules of this debate, despite accepting this debate with the rules clearly stated in the first round. I stipulated that a maximum of 3 arguments were to be presented and yet, Con made 8 arguments in his list. I flat out refuse to be gish galloped, so I presented an olive branch to Con and allowed him to pick which 3 arguments he wanted to present. Con picked 3, 4 & 5 for me to respond to. I refused to even touch on point 5, since that has absolutely no relevance to this discussion which pertain to biology; point no. 5 is an argument which belongs to completely different fields, so that point will not be brought up in a discussion regarding biological evolution. Con still has not offered an alternative point to 5, so I will be responding to points 1,3 & 4 as a result. Point 1) This is the point where I will bring up the "randomness" issue. There is a certain amount of chance when discussing the theory of evolution; that is why we use punnet squares to determine the chance of offspring acquiring a specific genotype for instance. However there is a difference between evolutionary process incorporating the chance of something occurring and that process being random. Chance: (4a): "The possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome " [1] Random: "Without definite aim, direction, rule, or method " [2] The evolutionary process doesn't have a specific aim, that is true, but there is most certainly a method to it, so it being random is not applicable. To be honest, I was hoping to avoid this sort of nonsense. I don't like toing and froing over what words mean, unless absolutely necessary (i.e setting up definitions for the purpose of a debate, like we started off here). I would rather not have a debate where an entire refutation to a point is made up of this going over what words mean, and their applicability to a topic. It's mind-numbingly boring to be honest. But, because you didn't give me an alternative to point 5, this is the point I have to respond to. The fact that you have misconceptions about how evolution occurs, does not invalidate a century and a half worth of research in a field. Point 3) To be fair, this argument wasn't as atrocious as the previous one, but it still isn't a very good argument. Because droughts are so frequent, there are of course gaps in our records, and especially as drought indexes are a fairly recent phenomena, knowing when and where a drought took place, can be fickle. However, that does not mean to state that we cannot know that droughts have occurred in the past [3]. That link explains how extreme droughts explain the pattern of a settlement being occupied, abandoned, and then re-colonised and it also goes over how they arrived at that conclusion. Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly. If you want to state that that's what happened, you need to provide evidence. It is in fact possible to know that a drought took place in the past; find evidence supporting this. Until you can do this, this point of yours is nothing more than wishful thinking. Point 4) An argument from complexity; one of the more baseless and insufferable arguments I come across from creationists time and time again. What Con fails to realise is that many differing categories of eyes exist; the stigma, ocellus (which are two eyespots together - eyespots are also referred to as the aforementioned stigma) compound eyes, Cephalopod eyes etc. To exacerbate the problem, even the most basic of Wikipedia [4] searches on the evolution of the eye vindicates that yes, this most certainly did take place and there's even a diagram [5] which shows how evolution of the eye could have taken place, despite it being "too complex" apparently. From eyespots to our pupils, all those eyes are not half-formed. The same is in regards to kidneys as well. Pointing to a part of an organism, and then labelling it too "complex" to evolve, does not even come near a competent refutation. Thus far, the 3 points brought up in this discourse, have been incredible easy to refute. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...