Evolution Is Not Proven

Thanks for accepting. On to my opening arguments. 1. Gaps in the fossil record Were all life to have descended from a common ancestor via mutations and natural selection, the fossil record would consistenly show gradual transitions from simple organisms to far more complex organisms. However, this is not the case. The fossil record tells us that for billions of years, only single-celled life and colonial algae existed. Then, within a relatively tiny period of 15 millions years in the Ediacaran period, sponges, worms, and mollusks appeared. No gradual transitions between these and their (supposed) single-celled ancestors have ever been found. There are significant differences between a single-celled bacterium and a sponge. A sponge doesn't just have multiple cells, it has multiple types of cells. Also, while a bacteria can only reproduce asexually, sponges reproduce sexually. No fossils of expected transitionals between bacteria and sponges have been found. There should be some organism to bridge the gap between single-cellularity and multi-cellularity, like a 2-celled one. There also needs to be an organism to bridge the gap between having only 1 type of cell, to having upwards of 5 and 10. But there isn't. According to the fossil record, intepreting it under the assumption that all life shares a common ancestor, bacteria suddenly developed multi-cellularity, multiple types of cells, and sexual reproduction all at once! But it gets better. Both mollusks and worms appeared alongside sponges, with no gradual transition between them and their supposed single-celled ancestors. Mollusks have not 1, and not 5, or 12, but dozens of different tissues and organs, which require dozens of various cell types! One may object that the reason we find no transitions is because the transitional organisms were too small and too soft to survive the fossilation process. This assumption has been proven wrong. Cyanobacteria, which are both tiny and soft, have been preserved for over 3 billions years. (1) So one cannot excuse the fact that expected transitionals have not been found by claiming that they were too small or too soft, when bacteria, algae, jellyfish and sponges have been fossilized just fine. So far, I've only covered the Ediacaran Period. That was just an introduction of sorts; now, I want to blow this idea of Evolution out of the water. Let's talk Cambrian. In this period, completely new body plans appear, with alterations in the number of eyes, legs and segments, as well novel, mythological-appearing features. For example, Marrella spendens, that looks like a creature out of an Alien Vs. Predator movie: There's also Hallucigenia sparsa, whose name reflects its bizzare appearance: And last, but not least, Opabinia: Oh and of course, how could I forget about the Trilobites? These all generally represent completely new morphological forms than those found earlier in the fossil record. In this period (the Cambrian) about 20 new phyla suddenly appear. To put that number into perspective, only about 25 phyla exist in the fossil record, and a phyla is the broadest classification in the Animal Kingdom! All phylum (plural of “phyla”) represent massive morphological disparities between animals. Let's put some more perspective on the substantial differences that a phyla represents. Here are some familiar members of the Animal Kingdom: Phyla Vertebrata All of those animals belong to the phyla Vertebrata. That's right, the differences between a pet Goldfish and an attractive woman are not significant enough to warrant separate phylum! But over 10 brand new phylum suddenly appear in the Cambrian, with absolutely no gradual transition! Evolution, as defined in the first round, is far from being proven. Let us see if my opponent can solve the following puzzle: I now hand over the debate to my opponent, and wish him luck. (1) Schopf and Packer, “Early Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia,” 70; Schopf, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Cher