Humankind is not worthy live on earth

First off, just wanted to mention I am brand new to this website and this is my first actual debate. In reviewing some other debates I have seen some which summarize all of these very specific aspects of the debate and all these these rules (which I'm guessing come from philosophy/theory of logic?? To me a debate is a debate, make your arguments, don't use any fallacies, or other bs techniques. However I do lack formal teaching in the theory so please accept my apologies in advance and don't hold it against me if I inadvertently commit a debate "no - no" or something similar. So to the debate, I am taking the CON position to the assertion that Humankind is NOT worthy to live on earth which means I will argue that humankind is very much worthy to live on the earth. Also, ensuring we aren't debating with different understanding of what it means to be "worthy".. A quick Google search and to me, to be worthy" of living on the planet is whether there is a moral or ethical justification for or against. SHALL WE BEGIN! First I would contend and I hope most agree that the default assumption or the NULL hypothesis, to this question; Is that humankind is worthy to live on Earth (by extension includes current and future generations). I believe this is supported in at least a couple ways. First: We are in fact living on the earth currently, and it's not by accident. Whether a God created us and put us here or if we're just a product of evolution, we're not just here by chance, if an all knowing omnipotent deity put us here (I personally reject that - BUT if that was the case the debate is actually over, because who the heck are we to question the wisdom of this all knowing omnipotent entity? Or humankind is here byway of billions of years of evolution, survival of the fittest, the best and most adapted survive in this brutal unending, battle (no prisoners no mercy, it's ruthless with no rules no morality, every species for themselves. That scenario and the reality of how hard of a struggle it really was and to now ask after the fact, "are we worthy", that's a little dubious at best. Think back to what our ancestors/predecessors had to endure, the fear, the suffering, the sheer number of awful/terrible deaths, but generation after generation they persevered and against all odds, 99.7% of all species that ever existed are extinct! That's an incredible fact, virtually every species that ever was is gone, and here we are lucky to even be existence and owing it all to the incredible sacrifice and pain and perseverance of our long dead brethren, but we're so ungrateful, so oblivious to the true significance of how fortunate we are just to be alive of life. My next argument that humankind is worthy to live on together earth is that there is no objective and rational argument against this. Humankind along with "x" million number other species all got to this point in the same basic way, by out competing and best adjusting to a constantly changing world. Every species achieved rage necessary adaptations in their own way of course but the framework the nature of how we all got here is fundamentally the same. I have never ever heard any question raised about the morality of whether some other current species is "worthy". The very notion is absurd, critics would scream "who the hell are we to have an opinion on the worthiness of a unique species and it's right to exist"! Even if we could develop some logical framework to evaluate species' worthiness by some objective measures what would ever give us the moral justification in the first place. I would argue this would the widespread opinion, so logically it follows that humankind are also just one of the millions of species to exist, if it's preposterous to for us to try to determine the worthiness of a species to life, why would not equally preposterous if referring to ourselves? What makes us so special, ("un-special" really, are we just so inherently evil??) that of all of the millions of species currently in existence for some unexplained reason our continued existence and it's worthiness is a totally valid question but applying asking the same question of "worthiness" for any other species is indefensible? That entire premise is not supportable, goes against basic common sense and cannot be accepted as a given. If one species out of millions in existence, where we all got here in the same basic way (adaptation of some kind or another) why would one of these species be arbitrarily subject to this unprecedented level of scrutiny where it's right to continued existence needs to be defended whereas with all other species it's an absolute given. That contrast between one species and the other millions has to be justified NOT the other I way around. If we were ever looking for a more clear cut example of where the so called burden of proof lies I can't think of many better than this one. I think that will suffice for the opening round. I feel I have made two very strong, reasoned arguments that strongly reject a notion that the worthiness of humankind is totally without merit.