Evolution is a strongly supported fact of science.

This round will include rebutting popular misconceptions. Round three for rebutting my opponents specific claims."Evolution is only a theory"The word Theory in a scientific sense refers to an explanatory model that accounts for facts, laws, and observations. It is not a conjecture, as we commonly know the term. Laws never become Theories, and Theories never become Laws. Theories explain Laws. A Theory is the highest standard possible in science, transcending mere hypothesis. [1] The criticism that Evolution is "only a theory" remains a common misunderstood and axiomatically wrong criticism when the correct definition of the term is accounted for. This semantic confusion is initially understandable. However, It becomes an issue when the public uses demonstrably wrong and misguided terminology in a democracy where polictians, as representatives of the people and not neccessarily scientifically literate, have the power to cut funding for crucial scientific research. Read: Chapter one (Only a Theory?) from The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins"There are no transitional fossils"The fossil record is necessarily incomplete. By geological standards, one could not expect every single transitional organism being perfectly fossilized. All one has to do is read up on the literature concerning the process bones have to go through in order to fossilize. The gaps of millions of years between each finding is entirely reasonable. It is still a testament that Darwin was even able to figure out that organisms share a common ancestor without the modern findings of palaeontology. [2] However, he predicted we should find transitional forms, and we indeed did. [3] If Evolution were false, we should expect a random sequence. There is a reason we find certain forms in certain stages of the Earth's layers, and it's predicted by Evolutionary Theory. It's also important to remember that filling a gap represents progress in our understanding; it does not represent going from one gap in the fossil record to two gaps, and it's relatively specious for one to claim so if they wouldn't apply the same reasoning in other areas of their life. Read: Chapter six (Missing Link? What do you mean, "Missing?") from The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins; Chapter two (Written in the Rocks) from Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne. "_______________ is too complicated to have evolved"This is a common argument from ignorance. Merely dicatating that something is complex, and loathing ones inability to account for it does not represent rigorous reasoning. The complexities of Evolution are genuine puzzles that need solving with years of data collection refinement. It strains ones credulity less to suggest that, for example, the eye evolved over many successive generations than it is to suggest anything unscientific as an alternative. [4] There is an abundance of peer reviewed research documenting Evolutionary pathways to seemingly irreducibly complex structures. I recommend reading up on the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, and the specific examples that were addressed regarding the validity of Darwinian mechanisms accounting for the complexities of various biological structures, such as the modern immune system of vertebrates. [5]There are numerous scientific laws and advancements to our understanding that are counter intuitive (Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Computer Science) that no one is ever inclined to question because it does not tie in to our emotions as human beings. Evolution is controversial not because scientists disagree on how the complexity of life came about, but rather because of the publics' refusal to accept something profound enough to suggest our very origins without even understanding its basic principles. Skepticism is a virtue in science, and ignorance is what drives our need to understand. However, when ignorance is used as an excuse to favor emotionally satisfying yet illogical answers without providing hard evidence, we are a long way from justifying pointing our finger at hard working scientists who are providing the evidence. Recomended reading: Chapter 9 (Evolution Redux), Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne"Evolution is athesitic "This is a common and demonstrably false assumption. An easy way to discredit this is to point to the Catholic Church, having been initially resistant, finally conceding to the evidence compiled for Evolution and officially declaring it to be a valid method on which god worked his creative power. I am simply addressing the fact that many theologians rightly accept the scientific evidence for Evolution, and thus, this does not automatically lead people to atheism. [6] [7] [8] How people draw their Philosophical and/or religious conclusions after examining Evolutionary is a personal, not empirical, endevour. Arguments have been made and lines of reasoning have been argued for the notion that Evolution discredits the concept of a creator god or god(s), but this debate will not address these.Reccommended Reading: Non-Sequitur (logic), Wikipedia"Evolution is irrational and/or not scientific" This claim against Evolution could easily be dealt with using a few simple defintions. However, as I prefer using my own words, I will not do this. Science must be falsifiable. This means that any proposition must be, at least in theory, able to be proven false. If not, it is entirely shielded from open inquiry and peer review. Without this, it would be hard to distinguish which ideas are more credible than others. Evolutionary Theory has a plethera of relevant scientific disciplines that could discredit the idea that all orgaisms share a common ancestor. First, Paleontology. Finding an aquatic mammal in the Pre-cambrian layer of geological strata would certainly do the trick. Evolution predicts that simple forms would eventually split off and evolve into larger and more complex organisms, with the simple and justified assumption that they unconsciously had to in order to survive. This is exactly what we find. A common objection is that whenever paleontologists find something "out of place" they simply change the order of things and thus "change their minds" and update their model. This is a semantic trick. Scientists have indeed updated their understaning of the fossil record, based entirely on the evidence, which is exactly the oppossite of irrational behavior and simply "changing ones mind." [9][10] Second, Evolution needs time, and Geologists, Physisists, Cosmologists, Dendrochronologists et al. have indeed spoken on how old the Earth is, and sure enough there is no reason to believe 4 billion years is not long enough for lifeforms to evolve. If my opponent does not accept this age, he is not challenging Evolution: he is challenging one of the most widely accepted empirical facts about our Earth and Universe.For Evolution to be scientific, we must also look at at whether or not we can test and observe it's predictions. Evolutionary biologists predicted that the genetic code would overlap perfectly with biological ancestry as shown by tradtional phylogeny. If Evolution were not true, we should expect each species to show no evidence of common ancestry in their genetic makeup. Alas, we indeed do find it. [11] Recommended reading: http://talkorigins.org...http://talkorigins.org..."Mutations are only harmful, organisms must have been designed" That mutations are only harmful is a common myth. Most of them are neutral and have little to no effect on an organisms survival. The harmful mutations are usually weeded out by natural selection, and vice versa, the beneficial ones are selected for, eventually leading to very intricate and complex survival machines. Cumulative Natural Selection 101. More potent, I personally believe, is the vestigial remnants of Evolution, as they spell out the flaws of traditional intelligent design reasoning. If descent with modification were true, we should expect to find numerous illuminating examples of redundant structures and biological systems, as Natural selection can only mold what is already there to begin with. No surprise here, we find many of them. Whales with limp legs and useless pelvic bones, giraffes with 16 foot laringial nerves (when a few inches is preferrable), blind spots in mammalian vision due to the placement of the optic nerve, and useless wings in flightless birds are a few examples off the top of my head. Nature does not start from scratch, and it shows: on the phenotype level down to the very genetic code of organisms. There is a reason humans have redundant DNA used for making tails, and it is predicted by Evolution. [12] [13] [14] Recommended Reading: Chapter 3 (Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design), Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne. I simply cannot address all of the miguided claims against Evolution. I believe addressing and clearing up these few objections provides a solid beginning for what I hope to be a pleasurable debate, and I must save a little stamina for specific rebuttals in round three. Thank you for reading. 1. http://www.notjustatheory.com...2. http://darwin-online.org.uk...3. http://www.talkorigins.org...4. Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins, R. Chapter 5.5. http://ncse.com...6. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com...10. http://en.wikipedia.org...11. http://genome.ucsc.edu...12.http://en.wikipedia.org...13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...14. http://www.nature.com...