Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

First, we need to be sure about the stance on Evolutionary theory. My opponent cannot debate this issue if he defines "Evolution" to be a theory that it is not. Evolution is not defined as the theory of pineapples and coconuts. Evolution is not defined as the theory of penguins wearing santa hats. Evolution is not defined as "the theory that all life evolved from a single cell amoeba and that humans have themselves evolved in this way through the lineage of an ape-like ancestor. " Contrary to what my opponent believes, he is not allowed to adjust the definition of scientific terms as he sees fit, nor does popularity change a scientific definition. I have provided sources to back up my definition whereas my opponent has absolutely no sources for his arbitrary definition whatsoever. I shall include another source that gives several other definitions and examples of definitions which are wrong: . http://www.talkorigins.org... If my opponent is still unhappy with the scientific fact that his definition is wrong, I shall further appease him by connecting what he calls "microevolution" to what he calls "macroevolution" later on. My opponent has also stated that if this definition is accepted, then he has no argument with me, so he has essentially conceded. We are, at this point, just chatting. I have countless sources that validate my definition of Evolution and there are no credible sources that back up his. This is fact. Now, on to the counterpoints: 1. Have wolves evolved into Chihuahuas? Not all wolves. All dogs, including Chihuahuas, can trace their evolutionary lineage back to the gray wolf. . http://www.essortment.com... Chihuahuas did not evolve from the wolves directly, but are a demonstration as to how gradual changes can lead to rather large changes. Thus, my opponent's attempt at reducing to absurdity has backfired and he has actually helped my argument. Thank you. 2. I cannot explain the presence of mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells, therefore I am wrong. My explanation was actually in the paragraph immediately below the link, which my opponent has ignored. If my opponent is lacking in understanding about the topic, he can either ask me to clarify or research it on his own. I, however, have supplied the audience with enough information about the Endosymbiont hypothesis to judge the resolution. Ignoring an explanation and refusing to respond on the basis that I have no explanation is wrong on several levels. 3. Genetic manipulation shows intelligent design My argument was to show that speciation via this mechanism is possible. I now introduce another argument: Antibacterial resistance. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Genetic information mutated out of a species of S. A. Bacilli and became actively selected for. This is why Penicillin is losing its efficacy over the decades: Bacteria are evolving new mechanisms to defend against the drug. 4. The peppered moths, finches, fossil record are all breeding, not speciation My opponent has missed the point. My point was to show that the mechanism of natural selection could lead to changes within a species, as per the definition of Evolution that is accepted by scientists (as opposed to the one my opponent proposes, which is probably just a figment of his imagination). Neither the moths nor the finches were bred, nature simply selected the ones which had certain traits and allowed them to prosper. In addition, the fossil record does not show breeding, my opponent is simply confused. 5. Transitional fossils My opponent makes a confusing statement regarding species and families. This has nothing to do with the fact that transitional fossils show an evolutionary connection between related species. My opponent's designation of a "family" is arbitrary and unscientific. The scientific "family" is above "genus" and "species". Transitional fossils provide evidence for macroevolution, which my opponent cannot complain about. 6. Family breeding My opponent's own source shows that he has not read what he is citing because it disproves him entirely. I present his source as my own piece of evidence: . http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... First, I must state that no two animals of different species breed in an evolutionarily significant way because their offspring are sterile. Donkey + Horse = Mule, but the mule is sterile. In addition, the dog/wolf hybrids are also sterile. Thus, my opponent's point is moot. The very fact that he brings up families is irrelevant to the entire debate. 7. Addition of information First, they are theories and a proposed mechanism, but they are scientific theories. The definition of "Theory" is a general rule that frames and explains observed phenomena, not the typical layperson's definition of "guess" or "hunch". These mechanisms are backed by scientific data and analysis. My opponent then speaks of an original archetype and genetic variation/switching on and off. There are two possibilities: The first is that this is an important point and I do not understand what my opponent is saying. The second is that my opponent is mumbling irrelevant information in an attempt to seem knowledgeable about the subject when he is not. I will assume that it is the former and invite him to explain the following statement he made: "Of course there is genetic variation, a 'switching on and off' process but unless you begin with the original archetype then how would you know the original code sequence? " And now, as promised, I shall unite "micro" and "macro" evolution. My opponent has conceded that I have offered many examples of "microevolution" and not of "macroevolution" and claims that I have not met the burden because he personally defines evolution as "macroevolution". First and foremost, my opponent is not a scientist, nor the founder of Evolutionary theory, nor an expert. Neither am I. Thus, I suggest that he posts a citation of ONE SINGLE SOURCE and see whether it is more credible than the multitude of citations I have, claiming that Evolution is what I have defined it to be. Please keep in mind that my opponent has already conceded that if the definition of evolution is what I say it is, then we have no disagreement. I then invite him to challenge my sources by giving his own. To appease my opponent, here is a short list of observed macroevolution in nature: . http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com... I have also supplied as evidence for macroevolution, the existence of many transitional fossils found in the fossil record, showing the change of one species into another. I have combined this with my argument debunking my opponent's notion that species can interbreed successfully. This is generally a marker to determine when a species ends and begins. If there are cases where two species can reproduce, then it shall be corrected. By definition, two species cannot produce fertile offspring, as supported by the source my opponent has cited himself. Regardless, microevolution directly implies macroevolution. My opponent cannot give a reason why small changes cannot build up to big changes. If I can walk to my front door, why can't I walk down the street? My opponent has no answer. I have not only responded to all of my opponent's points, but have completely countered them. My opponent has also ignored a few of my pieces of evidence and has absolutely no argument standing. I would ask that in the next round, he address everything I have set forth because if even 1 piece of evidence slips by, then he loses the debate. Thank you. I await my opponent's response.