But once again going back to one of my original arguments, where did the Lightning come from to compose the cell? Creation is the first, and longest standing theory in history. Charles Darwin in the end even said that his theory was wrong when he was on his death bed and then claimed to be a Christian . In the end evolution is not made up of fact but as you said "connecting the dots". This completely skips over the facts that would disprove evolution . Let me make my final statements a little more scientific so you might understand. Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. . Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism"s appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called "microevolution" (with an "i") and is not what we are referring to when we write "the theory of evolution". After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frog"not a fish or a lizard like your theory states.You use Darwin"s theory, stating that this simple life evolved over the next 3 plus billion years into the plants, animals, and humans we see today"using the long term effects of microevolutionary changes. Scientists call this process of developing new life forms "macroevolution" (Note the different spelling.) Both of these processes put together are what the public at large and the scientific community think the "theory of evolution" is. Therefore, abiogenesis combined with macroevolution is what we are referring to when we write the "theory of evolution". We were discussing "where did life come from?" and "did we descend from apelike ancestors?" These are abiogenesis and macroevolution topics, respectively. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, you turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. You attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, but you are changing the topic and not proving anything. As a proof of macroevolution, many scientists turn to a lengthy, yet sophisticated discussion about changes in DNA from generation to generation as you have. This is still a jump in logic, since DNA changes are a microevolution topic"not scientific proof of abiogenesis, macroevolution, or the theory of evolution.As "evidence" to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. I have spent a great deal of time examining these sources in the past and saw only a "circle of information," with each document pointing to the next source as their "proof." In college, we cynically called this procedure the "tower of babble." (Yes, "babble" is the right word"this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!Unfortunately we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin"s theoretical writings.Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution? By the way,I realize that many of the writings that support the Bible"s creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. I am not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bible"s creation account instead. I propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given "equal time," with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. This debate was about is evolution real. I have given my facts and rest my case.