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

REFUTATIONSClaim: Falsifiability of EvolutionPro: "I don't wish to be condescending in any way, but my opponent seriously needs to read up on biochemistry."I am certain that my opponent did not mean to be condescending, but I feel that I can use this to stress a point, mostly for the readers and voters. When people doubt the General Theory of Evolution, a common claim is that those people either do not know enough of the evidence for evolution, or they do know the evidence but reject it in favor of faith. (I am not saying this is what my opponent is inferring- I am merely exploiting this issue because this may be the view by many people.) Now, this is certainly not true. A person can be well aware of the arguments for evolution, and may not be convinced and have alternative explanations that are equally valid. Also, (as most doubters of evolutionists are theists), theists have no problems with evolutionary theory. Theists believe a deity created the universe- but the how is subject to debate. So, certain theists do not deny evolutionary theory because of religion- they do so because of the scientific reasons. Now, I asked my opponent to show how evolutionary theory could be falsified. He said, "The best example I can think of is if scientists started to find fossils demonstrating a sustained regression rather than the sustained progression that natural selection would favor. " I must say, I think there are some issues with this being a way to falsify evolution. First, there is no proof of sustained progression in the first place. "A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." (1)As no proof can sustain the claim for sustained progression, I fail to see how it is fair to alledge that this is the way to falsify evolution. This itself shows how evolution does not survive on evidence- it strives on wishful thinking, and no matter what new evidence comes up, it is just used to support evolution in some new way.I want to take some more space stressing out this point as well. Darwin had no scientific degrees. He did not come up with his theory based on evidence- He came up with a theory that he realized at the time went against the evidence of his day, but he was certain that in time his theory would be proved. (Darwin: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (2)) However, as already shown, this is not the case. (1) Since that time, many scientists have adopted his philosophy on the origins of the world, and have used that philosophy to interpret the way that they see the world. However, this does not prove evolution, nor does this show that since so many scientists accept it, this means that it is more likely to be true. Modern day science is naturalistic, that is, it does not allow any explanations to include God. This is fine, as God is not needed to explain the processes of the universe. I would argue, though, that the origins of the universe is the one instance where a God is needed. Also, if we look at evolutionary thought, we see it keeps changing. First, Darwin only proposed natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. Later, this was debunked, and Neo-Darwinism came into play (3), adding mutations into the mix. However, modern day evolutionists are realizing that this still is not enough to explain evolution: "In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution." (4)Claim: Doubt does not disprove.My point with the ladder analogy was that, no matter how much correlation there is between two subjects, it still does not prove causation. Causation is another issue, one that must be explained how it is caused. Only relying on correlation will never prove causation.Claim: The Mario analogy is a bad analogy.I am glad my opponent immediately argues that this is not a fair analogy. This shows that my opponent realizes that the NES Mario Bros. computer code could never be tweaked and changed into the Wii Super Mario Galaxy code. His reasons for bad analogy are easily refuted. The NES Mario Bros cannot contain any code that allows for the controller to have motion, as the NES system has no motion controller, but the Wii does. This is akin to an animal without wings vs an animal with wings- no genetic code for wings can be written in an organism without wings. All mutations play on the possible mutations (i.e. mutations have a limit) for that organism. This analogy is consistent with my reference (4).Claim: AbiogenesisI argued that we never see life come from non-life, then my opponent attempts to rebut this by using the Miller-Urey experiment. There are a few problems here:First, the Miller-Urey experiment did not simulate the real conditions of life on planet earth, because no oxygen was used in the experiment, even though earth had an oxygen-rich environment. (Evolutionists realize that life could not have evolved on earth, which is why origin on Mars is the new theory (5). I am not promoting this theory, just showing the earth origins is unlikely.)Second, the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce life. It produced some building blocks for life. This is akin to saying extreme weathering built some raw materials for a building. If the weathering keeps occuring, the materials will form into a building.I am sorry for my opponent, but the Miller-Urey experiment was far, far away from proving abiogenesis.Claim: Living FossilsPro: "if a species is already ideally fit to the environment, then mutated individuals will not have any advantage over other individuals, and thus the population will not evolve. "I am sorry, but you have just completely refuted evolution. Let me explain why.With living fossils, they have undergone no change for millions of years. This leaves you two possibilities: 1- You are claiming that environments have not changed for millions of years, which is why the living fossils did not change. If this is true, then no other organisms should have evolved, as the environments did not change. 2- the environments did change, however the living fossils did not change. However, if these living fossils didn't change even when the environments did, then why should we conclude that other organisms did change?Also, the living fossils were absent from the fossil record for many layers, but we know that they existed during those times. This means that there are organisms that did exist during geological periods in the past that are unnacounted for. This shows that we cannot assume that only the organisms we do find in the fossil record are all that existed during those times, just that those were all that were fossilized.ConclusionMy opponent still has no absolute causal proof of Evolution.(1) Science July 17 1981 p.289, David Raup(2) The Origin of Species, 1859, p 280, Charles Darwin(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(4) Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475(5) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...