The Theory of Evolution is Plausible

I will now attempt to refute my opponent's claims made against my arguments in R2.RebuttalThis rebuttal will draw from my opponent's claims and present evidence to the contrary.R1: Prevalence of Transitional FossilsMy opponent claims that there are very few examples of transitional fossils, and therefore there is no sufficient basis for drawing a conclusion on common ancestry. On the contrary, there are many examples of transitional fossils other than the archaeopteryx. One is Tiktaalik, which supports the transition between water-dependent animals, like fish, to land-faring amphibians. Amphisitium, an early type of flatfish, explains the gradual transition to the asymmetrical eye placement of today's flatfish. Australopithecus afarensis represents a change between quadrupedal apes and bipedal humans. Ambulocetus natans supports the phase of transition for cetaceans from freshwater to marine habitats. Need I say more? It is evident that these transitional fossils are evidence for common relation between all species, and further, a common ancestor. Natural selection, as proven countless times to be true and veritable, is the mechanism for these transitions occurring within the fossil record. Furthermore, it is most definitely true that the fossil record contributes to the plausibility of evolutionary theory and the theory of common ancestry, as the fossil record continues to unveil relationships between different sects of the animal kingdom that point to the credibility of evolution by natural selection.R2: On Genetic SimilaritiesThis claim rests on the idea that just because there are similarities within the genetic makeup of various species today does not mean that they can be related. However, it is the degree of similarity among more closely related species that proves common descent. For example, bipedal humans and quadrupedal apes have astounding similarities among their genetic pools, with the degree of similarity being 96% or even higher. This degree of similarity is smaller in species which are not so closely related, like the human and the fruit fly, which have a genomic degree of similarity around 60%. Another vital piece of proving common ancestry through genetic analysis is via phylogenetic reconstruction, allowing geneticists to trace evolutionary relationships by algorithmically sorting genomes by character conflict, transposons, repeats and further criteria. These studies produce beautifully accurate representations of evolution by the use of phylogenetic trees, such as this one: http://www.nature.com... R3: Darwin's Finches, Common Ancestry and Natural Selection My opponent fails to account for the basis for natural selection, which is genetic variation within a species. When the common ancestor arrived, there must have been some individuals within the population which were better suited to survive. For example, organisms of a type of finch living in a habitat where nuts are the main food source might be advantageous if they possessed an enlarged, sturdy beak, given the hardships of a finch with a long, thin and flimsy beak in the same situation. It is not just science, but common sense, that the finches with sturdy beaks would have more success in surviving, and therefore their genes would become more prevalent in the gene pool as their reproductive rate is higher than less fit finches. This is an example of directional selection, where an originally scarce trait becomes more common as this trait enables higher fitness than the alternativ(es). ConclusionIt is clear that my opponent denies obvious evidence supporting evolutionary theory by natural selection. All of my opponent's claims made in R2 against my own arguments have been refuted through the presenting of even more evidence. Therefore, I call on all voters to cast your vote in favor of Pro.I eagerly await my opponent's response.Sources(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...(4) http://www.genome.gov...(5) http://www.talkorigins.org...(6) http://www.nature.com...;