Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

1. My opponent begins by "citing sources". His first source is written by someone with the following list of credentials. "Sudarshan Kelkar- I am student of commerce background and love studying corporate law and economics. " Notice how there is no mention of anything scientific whatsoever. In fact, even after a lot of digging, I couldn't find anything *anywhere* about it being a widespread notion that we evolved from amoebas. This is just a random, trivial, untrue "fact" that my opponent seems to have lodged in his head. However, according to my opponent's second source, it is noted that Amoeba may have been the link between unicellular and multicellular life forms, making them vital, but not the origin. I also thank him for providing a source that adds to my side of the argument while still showing that his accusations are wrong. I advise him to read his own sources and not simply google the terms "evolution" and "amoeba" and post whatever appears. 2. Next, my opponent brings up the issue of what evolution means. Unfortunately, he has decided once again to invent strange definitions that stray from what any scientific source would define evolution as. Progression does not always mean improvement. In this case, there is no objective good or bad. Also, my opponent assumes that it went directly from wolf to chihuahua. However, in order to appease my opponent, I will propose the following: It could in fact be that the wolf began to develop shorter hair as they grew into warmer climates, grew smaller in order to more easily rid themselves of heat while preserving water, etc. This is justified by the fact that Chihuahuas are indigenous to Mexico, a hot desert climate. 3. Endosymbiont Hypothesis- I apologize to my opponent, I have made an error. My opponent understand then that the designation of a thing as a "theory" indicates that something has evidence, and that the designation of something as a "hypothesis" indicates something has no evidence. I provide the link again: . http://en.wikipedia.org... And assure him that it is the endosymbiotic *theory*, and not the hypothesis. In addition, I will also provide another link: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Illustrating the same point. Thus, by my opponent's own clarification of my error, he has conceded that Evolution is, in fact, based on at least some evidence. 4. My opponent thinks he can then bypass not one, not two, but THREE of my most vital points because he disagrees with scientific fact. The fact that he does not believe in the term "species" is not an indicator that it does not exist. He simply does not wish to deal with the fact that I have provided arguments he cannot counter. 5. After that, my opponent points back to his source, indicating that wolves and dogs can interbreed. This is the second time I have to tell him to reread his own source, which shows how wrong he is. He deliberately cut off the part he wished to quote, I shall aid him by supplying the part he wanted to hide from the audience: "Usually though, even if two different species interbreed and produce offspring, THEIR offspring cannot produce offspring. An example is the mating of a horse and a donkey. The outcome is a mule and mules are sterile. The only way to get more mules is to mate horses and donkeys again. " I made specific mention of the importance of this, which my opponent has completely ignored in favor of emphasizing a point which I have just disproven. (or I should say, a point that he has disproven himself on) 6. The point that I requested clarification on, is simply a lack of knowledge and understanding on my opponent's part. My opponent's argument is that the video I sent is wrong on the basis that things must go from more complex to less complex. However, this is typical begging the question fallacy. In addition, I have provided examples where information *is* added, and he has not responded to that. It is not an assumption if it is witnessed and documented. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever of things becoming less complex as a naturally selective process. My opponent then, is simply rambling and does not know what he is talking about. He claims that my linking to a site indicates that I do not understand what I am linking to, but my opponent has illustrated that this is only true for him, not for me. I trust the audience will understand the link even though my opponent does not. 7. My opponent then concedes that there is no issue between macro and microevolution even though he was arguing the point clearly in earlier rounds. He then replaces it with the argument that he defines evolution as "the theory that all life sprang from a single cell amoeba", however, there is no such theory and there is no such definition. No definition of evolution claims this and no scientific document claims this. Perhaps all multicellular life sprung from a collection of amoeba, as suggested in my opponent's link (thank you to my opponent for citing a source for me), but it does not indicate anything as to what my opponent is saying. Until he proves that this MUST be the definition for evolution, we will go by all of the sources I cited, which define evolution differently, and in a way my opponent has just conceded, would win me the debate. 8. My opponent accuses me of argumentative hypocrisy. However, he does not understand that I was simply illustrating that his argument was fallacious, not mine. I have provided numerous pieces of evidence for macroevolution, but my opponent has not provided any that say "no, there is a clear distinction between micro and macro". I am merely asking why he believes so, and he simply refuses to answer. 9. My opponent concludes by saying that I am being misleading. I have stated before that the definition of "evolution" is simple "genetic change in a population over time". I have also stated that in my opponent's deliberate repetition of these terms, I decided to appease him by talking about macroevolution, which is a branch of the general definition of evolution. My opponent would have us believe that cutting the branch would kill the tree. Thankfully, due to the complete lack of evidence, my opponent cannot even cut off the branch. So far, my opponent has done nothing but try to redefine scientific terms in his own fantastical ways, try to bend definitions as he sees fit, interpret sources to say what they obviously do not say, withhold information from the voters in order to defend his point, and malign my character by accusing me of doing things that I did not do. I have many arguments left that my opponent has either not addressed or simply ignored or glossed over. I hope that he shall address them in the next round, because as I remind my opponent: If I even have so much as ONE piece of evidence for evolution, then I will have affirmed the resolution. In fact, it does not even have to be a conclusive piece of evidence, or a good piece of evidence. It need only be a piece of supporting information. As such, I will include a few more pieces of evidence for evolution: 1. Observable common ancestry, hundreds of species are visibly observable to be related to each other and thus, from a common ancestor. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Homology: The actual parts of animals can be seen to be related and in different levels of adaptation. Another sign of ancestry. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology) . http://itc.gsw.edu... 3. The presence of vestigial organs shows that needs of an animal change and their parts with it. . http://www.livescience.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you to my opponent, and to the audience. I look forward to my opponent's response.