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

You were correct in assuming you should go ahead with your argument. Sorry for not clarifying that. Also, thank you for reinstating the round 5 rule which I forgot the mention. I look forward to a challenging debate. PART 1: DOUBT DOES NOT DISPROVECon: "I disagree with the first claim. Correlation does not imply causation. The statement "correlation might not imply causation" is false. "My opponent has not addressed the fact that the argument only casts doubt on the theory. There is no such thing as definitive proof in science. All theories must be falsifiable, so it is natural for there to be some room for error in any theory (1), and all that the correlation/causation argument does is point to that room for error and say "See? It MIGHT not be true! "Doubt does not disprove. Con: "Pro cannot argue that since there is correlation between the General Theory of Evolution and the fossil record. .. that this proves causation. He must show how the fossil record proves evolution. In order to show causation, Pro would need observable evidence of past events. This is impossible. "Correct. Undeniable evidence of causation does not exist. However, since doubt doesn't disprove, such causal evidence is not needed because the lack of it does not disprove evolution. PART 2: REDUCTION OF DOUBTIn addition, by proving that the evolutionary mechanism works and exists, we can reduce the doubt substantially because causation can be reasonably inferred from such evidence. Con: "This is known as duplication mutation (1). This is not new information, which is what the General Theory of Evolution requires. .. However, natural selection can only pick from information that is already there; it does not create new information. "This is absolutely false. Evolution does NOT require new information. There are SEVERAL types of mutations (2), including substitution, insertion, deletion, duplication, and frame shift. All of those types of mutations are capable of producing beneficial adaptations (whether or not an adaptation is "beneficial" is based on the environment). Also mutations CAN produce new information (3)(4). Con: "Now, even if my opponent could find an example of species producing new information, which is what the General Theory of Evolution requires, this would still not prove his case. If he could prove that species in the present are adding new information, he cannot prove that this has always happened. It is merely an unproven assumption that things that occur in the present occurred in the same way in the past. So, still, my opponent has no valid reason to assume that there is any direct causation between the fossil record proving the cause of the General Theory of Evolution. "First of all, as I have already proved, Evolution does NOT require new information to function. Second of all, as I mentioned in the intro to part 2, I don't NEED to provide evidence of direct causation because doubt does not disprove. I can however, prove that the evolutionary mechanism exists, since there have been so many observed examples of it (5)(6)Since all organisms have the same DNA as the organisms in observed examples, and all lines of evidence (e. g. fossil record, genetics) point to Evolution, we can INFER that all organisms evolved via the same evolutionary mechanism. I realize this isn't irrefutable proof of causation, but using this logic, we can reasonably infer causation, which is sufficient to substantially reduce the doubt caused by this argument. PART 3: SUMMARY (In the form of rebuttals to my opponent's conclusions)"My opponent assumes that new information has been added, which has not been observed,"Mutations comes in many different forms. Not just addition of new information. ". .. and then supposes that this unproven assertion correlates to the Theory of Evolution. .. "The Evolutionary Mechanism has been observed repeatedly. .. ". .. he than assumes that this correlation must imply causation, without showing any proof as to the cause. "Undeniable proof of causation is not needed since the argument merely casts doubt upon the theory. All that is needed to reduce that doubt is show that causation can reasonably be inferred by logic along with observed evidence. Honestly, Part 2 and 3 aren't really even necessary because Part 1 already achieves the resolution of the debate: the correlation/causation argument does not DISPROVE evolution. I'm just doing part 2 and 3 to show that Evolution is extremely well-supported and that the doubt caused by the argument is very minimal. I look forward to hearing my opponents next argument. Cheers! SOURCES:(1) . http://www.rationalskepticism.org...(2) . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(3) . http://www.newscientist.com...(4) . http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com...(5) . http://listverse.com...(6) . http://www.pbs.org...Source 1 was provided by the DDO user etherealvoyagerSource 3 & 4 were provided by the DDO user Sagey