The Correlation/Causation argument does not disprove the theory of Evolution

Firstly, I would like to give my thanks to my opponent for obliging my request to post his argument as late as possible. Him doing so has indeed given me the time I need.RESOLUTION"We both agree and understand that correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, in order for the Theory of Evolution to have causual evidence of its accuracy, we should be able to see evidence of this happening today. We HAVE seen evidence of this happening today (1)."If I can refute evert claim of causal evience, leaving no causal evidence to show that Evolution is true, then the correlation/causation argument does not only cast doubt on Evolution, it disproves the theory."However, I have said many times now that the chance of Evolution still being true is STILL there EVEN if there is no causal evidence. I feel that this is becoming a bit repetitive now. "My opponent has argued that since we have seen mutations and natural selection occur in different species, this proves Evolution. I have already argued why this is not the case. And still, this is only correlation to the Theory of Evolution"That is false. Observed micro-evolution IS evidence of possible causation. It is not just correlation. The examples of Evolution that we have observed have happened EXACTLY like the theory has held. The correlation/causation argument basically says that nothing links the fossil record to the theory of Evolution, and these observed examples show that the link's existence is not only possible, but also highly likely."This present day causal evidence is where the bulk of the argument rests, which is why I'm comitting most of my characters to refuting his "proof" for Evolution"I don't mean to burst Con's bubble, but the only reason I'm responding to his other arguments against Evolution is because I feel like it. It is not really central to the resolution at all. I simply want to show that the likelihood of Evolution being true is very high. REFUTATIONS My opponent has come up with a new video game analogy to better represent the situation. However, even this one is not acceptable.I pointed out before that the difference between genomes of even some of the most radically different organisms is actually very limited (4). No analogy concerning video games truly works for this because the difference between the codes of video games is far more than the difference between the genomes of organisms. "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species,. That's a common idea people have, that evolution is due to random mutations." Here, my opponent has quoted the revered evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould. I know that saying this will probably displease my opponent, but he has misinterpreted this quote. Allow me to explain:It is true that mutations do not produce major new changes. They produce very limited changes in genotype, and most of the time, those changes do not result in a beneficial adaptation for natural selection to favor. That is why evolution is such a slow process.It is also true that Evolution is not due to just random mutations. It is due to certain genetic traits being favored by the environment.This quote simply re-affirms known facts about Evolution. It does not disprove it at all... Next, my opponent quoted an Evolutionist making an anti-evolution statement about the fossil record.I agree that it isn't technically an appeal to authority fallacy, so I apologize for calling it that.However, quoting individual evolutionists who point out flaws in the current theory of Evolution is a standard Creationist tactic, and I will respond to it with an extensive list of scientists who have studied the fossil record and concluded that it DOES support Evolution (2). The list is part of a movement called "Project Steve" which specifically aims to bring and end to that tactic (3).Then, my opponent claims that the Big Bang is, indeed, part of the theory of Evolution.I strongly disagree, but even if that were true, it really doesn't matter because God and the Big Bang aren't mutually exclusive at all (i.e. God creates universe via Big Bang)Not to mention that many atheistic scientists would completely disagree that God is a necessary factor in cosmology..."...when a theory keeps getting proven wrong, so new interpretations have to be created to fit the new evidence, this shows that the theory is wrong, and a new theory is needed"My opponent's choice of words here is fallacious. The theory does not keep getting "proven wrong". It simply gets updated as more information is found. That is what makes it so much more likely to be true!"My opponent seems stuck on the Miller-Urey experiment being the proof for life by inorganic materials."Actually I clarified this last round. I do not believe that at all. Just to make sure this doesn't come up again, I will drop the term "Miller-Urey experiment" completely and approach this differently. I simply mean to say that Abiogenesis has been proven thoroughly. There is tons of scientific research material on the topic of how life evolved from elements to inorganic compounds, inorganic compounds to organic compounds, organic compounds to genetic material, genetic material to primitive cells, primitive cells to prokaryotes, prokaryotes to eukaryotes, eukaryotes to multi-cellular organisms, and so on. Next my opponent goes off on a tangent about living fossils. He wrote a lot, but only part that matters is where he actually responded to my explanation of living fossils: "why would we conclude the changes in environments is what evovled all of the other organisms (which we cannot prove were not as adaptable to the living fossils, and it is logical to assume that if the living fossils did not evolve into other organisms through changed environments, then no organism will change)."Actually, we CAN prove that other, faster-evolving species were less adaptable than the living fossils by using logic to decide what sort of traits would be advantageous in a variety of different environments. Living fossils have often displayed such traits."Pro, I feel as though you ignore my arguments, and then re-iterate your original statements saying how evolution isn't proven false. It seems as though you don't take any argument against evolution seriously. I would like to ask you to please carefully re-read my arguments, as I feel that I have refuted your claims countless times."I am sorry that my opponent feels this way. However, the only reason I am able to stick by such a bold claim is because I am sure that I successfully dismantled all of his arguments against Evolution. I really did take what was being said seriously, but it all consisted of arguments that I have seen before, none of which are valid.CONCLUSION"My opponent does not have any support for any evidence of causation for the Theory of Evolution."Don't need any."He ignored all of my refutations against it,"Correction: refuted "... and even admitted that evolution does not morph one ogranism into another even with the change of environments."Misconception about Living Fossils on Con's part.Any ways, I just want finish up by thanking my opponent for debating this with me and giving a quick summary of my entire side of this debate in 4 points:1) Even without causal evidence, the chance of Evolution being true is still there (i.e. Doubt does not Disprove)2) We have observed Evolution. That, in conjunction with strong correlation of evidence, makes Evolution highly likely to be true3) All scientific theories have some room for error, so pointing out room for error does not accomplish anything4) The "holes"in the theory of Evolution which creationists try to point out can all easily be explained Cheers!SOURCES(1) http://listverse.com...(2) http://ncse.com...(3) http://rationalwiki.org...(4) http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk...