The theory of Evolution

"Evolution isn't supposed to provide a beggining, it doesn't have much to do with the appearance of Earth's first life forms. The appearance of the first life forms on Earth is known as abiogenesis. " I am fully aware that evolution, in and of itself, does not bring life to earth, or the creation of the universe. However, Any scientific explanation for progression of species is reliant on a reasonable explanation for exactly why the former explanation is even possible. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that if scientific, logical beginning to earth and the cosmos cannot be constructed, evolution as a theory is completely laughable. "The law of entropry argument is invalid. Evolution isn't random or by chance" As reported by LiveScience, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is dependent upon chance. "The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called "mutations. "" [1] According to Miriam-Webster, a mutation is, "a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes" [2]. Chromosomes are not changed for a specific purpose, and cannot be changed for intended benefit of the species. Evolution relies on natural selection. Natural selection for evolution relies on mutation. Mutation is a chance-type event. Entropy states that chance cannot bring about a higher order and organization of beings. "Evolution has nothing to do with the universe's expansion or distance between stars. " My opponent seems unable to realize that evolution relies upon a timeline. This timeline is measured by several methods, including using the speed of light to measure distance between stars relative to distance in the past. This rate is used to give an approximate age of our universe, and thus a timeline for evolution. [3] This and carbon dating is where we get our 'billions of years'. Without a reliable set of constants, evolution's timeline is invalid. "Your source, (number 5) is NOT a reliable source" My source is notarized, and backed up with other accounts. Like it or not, my opponent has made a mistake here. You can also CLEARLY see in my opponent's image that an artist has filled in the skulls with blue, purple, and light gray. A quick note on my opponent's opening argument: My opponent goes on many assumptions in his opening argument ("We can also see organisms have significantly changed over time, Why aren't there 500 million year old human fossils? , etc. ") as though they are accepted fact. He provides no reason for me to believe that these assumptions are based in fact, and goes on to cite Wikipedia as a source. Who is the one using unreliable sources? Conclusion: My opponent lacks simple logic in his assertions and attacks my arguments based on a false set of reason and science. He has failed to provide indisputable proof for the case of evolution, and has dodged, rather than answered my contentions. Sources: [1] . http://www.livescience.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . https://www.e-education.psu.edu...