The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth.

Rather than discuss the flimsy nature of any competitors to the TOE as I had planned I will instead point out the flaws in my opponent's response and in doing so demonstrate that his counter-argument (a better, meta-theory of evolution) is neither necessary nor illuminating. I will do this without the need to cite anything - my sources are either cited in my earlier posts or by my opponent himself. The nature of my argument here is logical and doesn't require any further sources. Because my opponent hasn't provided a better explanatory model that the TOE I believe voters must decide I have prevailed in this debate. My reasoning follows: With all due respect I believe my opponent is confused about several things here. First I'd like to address the notion of falsifiability. According to Popper's definition any theory that is not falsifiable is not scientific, but he (and I) stressed that this does not mean that such a theory is necessarily without use. Popper is drawing a distinction between the well-formed and the poorly-formed, not between truth and falsehood. From this sentence, "I disagree, every theory can be labeled a potential for falsifiability until a better theory had been presented." it appears my opponent believes that falsifiability is somehow contingent upon being superseded by a better theory. Or perhaps that if a theory is true then it is not, by definition, falsifiable. To illustrate Popper's point I'll use two categorical statements. Consider the following: 1) Children beaten by their parents will in turn beat their own children. 2) There are serial killers alive today. Note that whether or not each statement is true doesn't matter, at least for our purposes. In the first example it would be possible to disprove, or falsify, the theory by finding a single adult who, although beaten as a child, does not beat his own children. As it's likely that such a person would be quickly found this theory won't be hanging around for long, but was a well formed attempt precisely because it could, if untrue, be disproven without having to search the entire universe, verifying each beaten child beats his own children. The second example states that something merely exists. It may be true (as we know) but an actual serial killer need not be produced for it to be so. The statement is true regardless of whether you have a killer on hand. And in order to disprove it one would have to examine every person on earth and then head out to the stars (in case other life forms are out there), before being able to say "there are no such thing as serial killers." So the first example is a false statement that is nevertheless a good one. And the second is a true statement that is poorly formed (for the purposes of this argument, as an example of why scientific theories should be falsifiable.) In addition, the first two theories my opponent cites (geocentricity, heliocentricity) are actually falsifiable. The statements "the earth moves around the sun" and "the sun moves around the earth" are both potentially falsifiable by observation. That Aristotle had neither the means nor the inclination to check doesn't mean that his theory was not well-formed or falsifiable. Regarding gravity, Newton formulated his second law to describe how two objects (each with a mass not equal to zero) interact. The simplified version of this law is F=ma, or Force = mass x acceleration. This equation was arrived at after repeated observation that bodies accelerate downward when dropped in a manner that is proportional to the force of gravity and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. The law makes no attempt to explain why this is so - it simply states that it is. This is the nature of scientific laws: they are categorical, not explanatory. Whatever theories Newton had about gravity they were unlikely to be correct considering that even today scientists are unclear about precisely how gravity does what it does. Einstein certainly provided a much more robust framework with his two theories of relativity, and he also showed that Newton was incorrect (that F does not equal ma but the discrepancy is only noticeable at near-light speed.) What's important here is that the theory of gravity did not graduate into the law of gravity. Theories never turn into laws - theories are explanations, much more complex and tentative than laws. Theories are almost always being updated as new information arrives. Scientific laws are occasionally thrown out (like Newton's) but often model such basic characteristics that it's unlikely we've been measuring incorrectly for centuries. I agree with my opponent that life could not have begun without thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum theories. And I think that this is the crux of his argument: evolution alone cannot account for the diversity of life because without these other entities there wouldn't be the raw building blocks available to brew up the primordial soup. But this argument is a weak one for one very simple reason. It is possible to envision a multitude of things which need to be in place in order for TOE to have done what it did, and what it does. All of the elements need to interact the way they do. Gravity has to keep us on the planet. Matter must not regularly cease to exist, and 1+1 must equal 2. To focus on thermodynamics, relativity, quantum theory, and whatever else my opponent chooses to bring up is to simultaneoulsy ignore an infinite number of other interactions about which he might not even be aware. But it doesn't matter: implicit in the TOE is the premise that the interactions it describes take place here, on this earth with these physical laws, these mathematics, the same tendency for that which exists to continue existing, etcetera. Because the TOE makes no claims about the origins of life it can take all that preceded it for granted. Economic theory need not concern itself with the chemistry of ink or the physics of printing presses in order to make claims about dollars (even though they are just printed bits of paper and the way they got that way may well be interesting.) Evolution's focus is on genetics, not genesis. All of the interactions my opponent describes, from the very particular effects the moon has on the earth to the nature of the atmosphere, are simply elements that either do or do not affect individual organisms and population groups. The TOE talks about organisms here on earth, so it's understood that this means "here on earth with all the physical interactions that entails." I can't envision a useful theory about anything here on earth which doesn't have these things implicit within it. Thus all of the interactions my opponent describes fall within the scope of the TOE. If his argument is that a more robust theory would consist of the TOE plus the assortment of other interactions he's chosen to focus on then my best response would be to say that the TOE encompasses everything he's describing and much, much more; there is no need to add that which is already there. Unless my opponent has another more robust theory to suggest I hope you'll agree that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth, and that you'll vote for the affirmative. Thank you.