Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

Included is a video of Kent Hovind's arguments involving the definition of evolution. http://www.youtube.com... 10:02- Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind's definition of macroevolution is critiqued, and the proper definition is given. 11:02- Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind's dog argument is dissected and disproved 14:29- Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind's definition of microevolution is critiqued, and the proper definition is given. 16:30- Final summary of the actual definition of evolution and why Creationists like Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind and my opponent, are wrong. I have included this video because my opponent's arguments, as well as his misunderstanding, is cut and pasted from the fallacies of convicted criminal Kent Hovind. These segments explain the Creationist tactic of using non-sequior and strawman arguments in order to argue their beliefs. My opponent has been developing his own definition of things that he believes he can disprove. However, let us not be fooled. This debate is about Evolution, not about my opponent's imaginary definition of "evolution". My opponent is using the same tricks and tactics shown and exposed in this video. To summarize it effeiciently, I will list them now: 1. The definition of evolution I have given is the scientific definition. The ones that scientists operate upon, the one that biology operates upon, the one that is commonly accepted and the one that is backed by massive amounts of evidence. 2. My opponent knows this and has wasted a massive amount of time trying to define evolution as something that makes ridiculous claims, so that he can attack that instead of the actual definition. Straw man argument. 3. My opponent then wastes even more time bringing up examples of why this imaginary Evolution is wrong, by introducing new terms, new imaginary terms that are figments of his imagination. 4. The term "species" is used to demonstrate how one gene pool may be isolated from another in a format that is evolutionarily significant, since evolution is genetic change of a population over time. Horses and Donkeys can produce sterile mules, but since the mules are sterile, they are evolutionarily insignificant. My opponent has decided to forego terms such as this for his imaginary one; "kind". Notice how it is the same word used by convicted criminal Kent Hovind. There is no definition given by my opponent or by Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind. It is only referenced and calls back common knowledge that we know what a "kind" is, when in reality, it has absolutely no scientific definition or importance whatsoever. In fact, it is merely the movement of goalposts. 5. My opponent moves the goalposts because I submit examples of speciation, the change of one species into another. However, my opponent is unhappy with this and demands that I prove how I can go from changing out of a species to changes out of a genus. Next, he will then force me to prove the movement from a genus into a family, and from a family to an order. When does it end? My opponent, in his fear of losing this debate and knowing the truth, sets irrational goals. 6. How do I know that these goals are irrational? Because as it says in the video, the development of modern genetics has made the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution obsolete. We see that looking at a DNA change, the designation of species, genus, family, etc. is all irrelevant and can be reduced down to the DNA sequence. In other words, we are looking at a slide and not a staircase. If I can slide 1/4 down a slide, what prevents me from sliding 1/2 down a slide, or from sliding all the way down the slide? My opponent has no response for this. Change in DNA reflects the change in phenotype, this means that going from species to genus is a matter of building up the changes, not a magical pokemon-style evolution as my opponent suggests. My opponent, having failed in redefining "evolution" and "species" to suit his desperate needs, has now decided that his only chance at winning is to redefine "evidence" to suit his desperate needs. My opponent has decided that he can blanket reject all my evidence by saying that no links can be evidence, when these links are to articles written by scientists with legitimate data. My opponent is trying to convince the audience that unless I bring in a Charmander and have him pokevolve into a Charmeleon, I lose this debate. I doubt that the audience is that gullible. It is then quite reassuring to know that I do not need to abide by my opponent's imaginary definitions of evolution, species, or evidence in order to win this debate. I have provided more than enough evidence to hopefully show a neutral audience that I am correct, and that my opponent's tactics are merely used in lieu of actual substance. I will now restate all of the evidence that I have outstanding, pieces of evidence for Evolutionary Theory that my opponent has either not countered or deliberately ignored. 1. The definition of Evolution: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... (video) http://www.talkorigins.org... Four sources that show that my definition is correct and that my opponent's definition is wrong. In several places throughout the debate, my opponent conceded that observable evidence would apply to my definition of evolution on the justification that my definition is wrong. To the last round, my opponent could not support his imaginary definition of evolution, so mine stands. 2. The fact that it is referred to as a "Theory" infers that there is scientific evidence for the theory. Whether Evolution is true or not is not the issue, nor is it an issue whether the evidence is legitimate or not. The evidence exists and connects with the theory. 3. Endosymbiotic Theory shows how mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells are indicators of common descent http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Yeast is genetically reprogrammed to create insulin, evidence that these changes are possible. http://www.dnai.org... 5. Peppered Moths show the example of natural selection's effect on speciation and was not a hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.independent.co.uk... 6. Natural selection and niche-filling speciation can be seen with Darwin's finches and antimicrobial resistance http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_finches http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. Three sources detailing fossil evidence for macroevolution of species http://anthro.palomar.edu... http://www.gate.net... http://www.nature.com... 8. Sources for observed macroevolution of species http://www.talkorigins.org... http://news.softpedia.com... http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com... 9. Addition of information is possible and beneficial mutations are observed www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg (video) http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.gate.net... 10. Common descent, Homology, and vestigial organs all point to Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://itc.gsw.edu... http://www.livescience.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has left all of these pieces of evidence hanging. It is plain to see that my opponent has made a statement he cannot back up and is too proud to take back, and too desperate to lose honorably. Vote CON. Thank you.