Evolution is not well supported

Thanks to my opponent and lets get right to the point.Finally, my opponent has clarified what he means by molecular evolution to the following."Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection."This means we are only talking about replicating molecules, as such anything beyond molecules is beyond the debate. These molecules replicate inside a cell which is part of an animal, however molecular evolution is only molecules. As such, we are only discussing molecular evolution. However, even this has changed multiple times in the debate while my opponent has sought various avenues to try remain in a debate that should have been conceded on an initial faulty premise in R1 "In this debate I will be arguing that the general theory of evolution - molecules to man". Which changed in R2 to "this debate , then, pertains to the idea that basic cellular molecules vertically evolved over billions of years, explaining creatures like man." and now n R3 to "Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection."To deny molecular evolution (i.e. mutations in DNA) is absurd. If molecular evolution does not occur, then the idea that my opponent puts forward when he says "We know that natural variation exists, it is reasonable" cannot occur.So by denying molecular evolution my opponent denies not only evolution, but natural selection as well. However, my opponent has said already that natural variation exists as it is reasonable. As such my opponent has in effect conceded the debate again, by agreeing that molecular evolution is possible.I hand the debate back to my opponent and again, I await my concession.xxxxxxxxxxIMPORTANT: All the following information, is for education purposes and not for voting purposes.Regarding creationism: I will gladly discuss creationism (intelligent design) based on its scientific merits when an actual hypothesis that makes predictions exists. At this moment nothing of that source exists so we can say creationism is not a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis.Regarding Talkorigins:Talkorigins, may be a newsgroup. However its a source of information (with links to reputable journals) that is moderated by scientists .How my opponent denies a fossil record for a gray whale placed in front of him is remarkable. Then to goes on to use analogies of cars for evolution, however maybe my opponent does not realize that cars (and Ariel Washing liquid) do not contain molecules that evolve (i.e. DNA mutations). As such the analogy is absurd.Further, my opponent also seems to be wanting to debate scientific theory, existence of god and multiple other topics which fall outside the scope of this debate. Let me add the following definitions of what molecules are to help my opponent.Definition molecule:a molecule refers to two or more atoms which have chemically combined to form a single species.(1)As such when the molecule no longer bears resemblance to the parent molecule it is no longer the same molecule. Here are some pictures to help. Each DNA helix in the diagram below is different in 3D shape yet they are also the same in basic structure. This is molecular evolution, as each 3D shape can have a different function. Picture Source (2)Additionally, here is an article on the molecular evolution of affinity and flexibility in the immune system.(3)Here are the arguments presented that are incorrect according to the proposition of the debate. I highlighted the relevant problems."No, I argued that for a lesser complex creature to develop into a complex one, more genes are needed. But the mechanisms by which our genome can acquire new information is completely insufficient ""Red Herring. This is only mutation, only lateral, only natural variation. Mutations aren't NEW genes, and NEW genes are needed for a fish to evolve into a human. This is the entire concept of evolution. We know that natural variation exists, it is reasonable, but natural variation is completely different from evolution. It is not as though evolution is an extrapolation of natural variation, variation occurs with mutation, existing switches turn on or off. Evolution requires new switches.""The Cambrian Explosion:" The Cambrian Explosion is not molecular evolution.BTW regarding the work of Barow and Tipler, I am not sure why you said I was misleading people when all I am showing is that small changes in genotype can lead to massive changes in phenotype. That is less mutations needed.I have shown here again, that my opponent is not debating the topic. All my opponent has done is mislead and change the definition every round in a game of words. Then when I point this out, my opponent gets defensive and accuses me of been dishonest.(1) http://chemistry.about.com...(2) http://news.softpedia.com...(3) http://www.pnas.org...