Evolution: True? (Continuation)

This time I'm not going to bombard voters with new information and thousands of sources. I'm just going to point out the logical contradictions at each stage of my opponent's case. 1. It is not my onus in this debate to present a competing theory. I'm simply showing that evolution is no more likely to be correct than the inverse vacuum fluctuation theory I made up a second ago. I'm actually going to accept, for the sake of argument, that parsimony takes a back seat to evidence, although you will note that this implies that where we have equal evidence for two theories parsimony is the valid way of choosing between them. As I have shown, and will continue to show, there is no evidence for either evolution or anything else. Thus a more parsimonious solution is more likely to be correct. My inverse vacuum fluctuation theory is more parsimonious by the way. Simply put, it states life came about in the opposite way to the universe. If you can disprove it, you can pretty much disprove creationism and many of the leading other alternative theories, so I challenge my opponent to pretend this is my model and try. Once again, for you the voters, remember that even if my opponent succeeds, that doesn't make evolution more correct so doesn't help his case at all. 2. Apparently in the process of duplication, new chromosomes are added. Which makes me wonder why all of the cells in my body have 23 pairs of chromosomes. If my opponent has cells with billions of chromosomes, I advise him to go to the local hospital immediately. No ad hominum attack intended. My simple question is this: we started out with only two chromosomes which were both really short. How did this increase in genetic information come about? 3. OK, so my opponent concedes here that he doesn't have a response to my point. All he says is that he wants more rebuttal against me. Once again, there is no onus on me to prove my position. I am the null hypothesis. I am peer reviewing your work and finding it flawed. This is science, science is not debates, it is someone proposing a theory and everyone else shouting "You're crazy!" 4. Half-wing-shaped thermoregulators do inhibit movement. Attach six large coats to either side of your body and go to the mall. Now you know what those prehistoric birds felt like. Now go to Jurassic Park and see how long you survive. As for the kiwi, if what you say is true, then why didn't native New Zealand eagles un-evolve likewise? 5. Your national geographic source names the Java man as one of the great finds of the century, despite having been long found out as a fraud. 5 of the 7 of the finds are from within the last 20 years so I doubt they would have had the same level of scrutiny as older finds which we now know are frauds. How can you claim this source as being more reliable than mine? 6. Yes, compare his source to my image. Particularly the head, remember that no complete half-dolphin skeleton has ever been found, so when they found a skull on land they assumed it had to be an early dolphin. Here my opponent makes a nice little ad hominum attack, saying I'm not a paleontologist so my argument must be false. Logically that's wrong. 7. I quote from my opponent's source's conclusion: "the underlying processes still remain surprisingly elusive". Evolution still does not explain the Cambrian explosion. To say that "oh, some scientist will work it out someday" as an argument is wrong, and that's not just because I think it's wrong. 8. Great! So deleterious creatures died. So why did not early giraffes die? Or early bombardier beetles? Oh that's right, it's because evolution DOESN'T EXIST! 9. OK, fitness may result in increased attractiveness. But what about having a half-formed third eye in the back of one's head? If that eye evolves it would be a serious advantage (360 vision), but no-one would go out with them. 10. Sorry, but the second law does not apply exclusively to origin science, unlike what my opponent would have you believe. It is a general rule that is applied to all systems. The more isolated they are, the more strongly it applies. At worst, the Earth is extremely isolated, so the opposite of the law should not be happening over the millions of years we have evolved. At best, the Earth is isolated and the opposite of the law should still not be happening. Whether I or my opponent are right on definitions, I'm still right on the argument. 11. Your source states that every single new polio virus has, on average, 3 mutations. So I guess I must have, like, 100 mutations, because I have that many more genetic materials. That makes me wonder why both my legs are alike - surely at this ridiculous mutation rate, at least one of my leg cells would mutate to the color blue or something. 12. My opponent concedes I have the majority on my side. Voters, side with the majority! Make the smart choice - less doctors support evolution than competing theories (see previous source). 13. No, I don't need to elaborate. You brought the argument and have not yet told us why the rate can be simply put down to human intervention. Then I will refute you. 14. The origin of life is as strongly related to evolution as mutation, yet my opponent refuses to debate it. Huh. Strange. 15. Life can form on Jupiter (in some strange form) but life cannot evolve on Jupiter. There simply is not enough energy for it to happen there. The opposite is true for Mercury. Does this clarify my case? 16. While perhaps I have not disproved evolution, my opponent has not proved evolution. Remember that to win this debate, my opponent needs to show why evolution is a better theory than all others. I simply need to stand here and successfully rebut his case. 17. Those are not vestigial organs, those are useless mutations. By vestigial organs I mean pre-birth. Don't worry, there are countless other theories that explain why there are apparently useless mutations (ie creationism=sin, my random theory from #1=chaos etc) 18. Macro evolutionary mutations are those that are a half-formed version of something greater. In themselves they are non-useful micro mutations. They don't happen. Half-tails don't appear. I will again be awaiting my opponent's case.