The Theory of Evolution is correct.

Alright, I'm just going to jump straight into it.If I had a penny for ever time I heard some variation of the phrase "Evolution is just a theory" I'd be able to build a stadium large enough to teach all the creationists this: a scientific theory is different from everyday use of the word. I don't want to type the whole thing, so just go to www.notjustatheory.com, it explains it better than I could. "There are far more scientific evidences against evolution than in it's favor", so far I have heard that there are no transitional fossils and DNA can't make more different DNA. What I'm looking for in response is how my ideas are false. I still don't see why every fossil isn't a transitional fossil, and how my idea of how DNA can more and different DNA is wrong. All I got from you is saying they're wrong, and these people also say they're wrong. I couldn't find anywhere that gives information about Darwin saying there aren't transitional fossils, though I could just be bad at looking.I don't want to get too into our origins because I'm not too fluent on the science of the Big Bang. From what I remember, due to the extreme heat and energy present when the observable universe was in a space that was very small, our laws and formulas about conventional physics break down. I don't know whether that applies to your piece about moving matter or not, but it's just something I wanted to mention. (Now that I mention it, dark matter might have to do with something, I don't know for sure.)Back to evolution. As I said, when you said that these evolutionists say that there are no transitional fossils, that doesn't really speak to me, I could probably get a list of scientists that do believe that there are transitional fossils, but that won't solve anything, I want to hear why you think there aren't transitional fossils, or why it's impossible to add genetic information. Also, I see now why not having the ability to add DNA hinders the theory.As for the idea that beneficial mutations go in the "wrong direction", I'm sticking with my previous idea of how genetic material can duplicate then mutate to add more different DNA, then I'll say that perhaps that new DNA does something beneficial to its owner. That may sound silly but its possible. I have yet to read an idea of yours that debunks it. I even read the Answers in Genesis article that you probably got information on. The one about how mutations can't add genetic information. To quote it: "Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information." The author states how neither duplications or mutation don't add information. This might be true, but only if you look at each phenomena independently. If duplication occurs then a mutation, there is now DNA that is different than the DNA that it was duplicated from. Think of it like this: I have a phrase, "I like Lucy Ann". If I duplicate it, "I like Lucy Ann I like Lucy Ann." It's true I don't get any new information. If I mutate it, "I lick Lucy Ann", you lose the original info, but get new info. It's true, neither of these add new information. But if I duplicate it, then mutate the phrase, "I like Lucy And I lick Lucy Ann." Now I have more information topping the old. See?"It has never been observed that life can arise from non-life" That is true. If it has, I've never heard about. But the Theory of Evolution doesn't concern origins, it concerns how organisms, given time and the instability of DNA can change into different organisms. This has been observed. Lizards moved to a new island were forced to adapt to a new diet. These lizards actually physically changed to suit a diet of leaves and vegetation (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). While you might say "well of course micro-evolution exists, but there are imaginary boundaries that stop organisms from evolving to a new species." or "well it's still a lizard, it didn't change that much." that's besides the point. The point is that they changed. They evolved. Now this specific documentation was over 30 generations. Imagine what can take place over 30 million generations. Given that small changes can occur over small periods of time, is it wrong to think that large changes can occur over large periods of time?I think this is the last thing I can type to you (I don't know, I haven't done this before). I appreciate your arguments and your effort. I'm glad I didn't just get someone that says: "LOL U BELIVE EVLUTION, UR STUPID LOL".