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

FORMAT/ACCEPTANCEYou have not specified on how you want this debate to go. I am assuming that with your last statement, "I eagerly await my future opponent's argument", that you will allow me accept and start debating in this round. Also, I will follow suit with your previous debate on this subject and promise to not add any new arguments in Round 5. On assuming these are acceptable, I shall begin my argument. I wish luck to my opponent and hope for a challenging and thought-provoking debate.ARGUMENTPro: -Just because the correlation MIGHT NOT imply causation doesn't mean that it CAN'T imply causation. All that argument does is cast DOUBT upon the theory; not invalidate it. It doesn't actually disprove the theory.I disagree with the first claim. Correlation does not imply causation. The statement "correlation might not imply causation" is false. Correlation and causation are separate issues. Two events can be correlated and one can cause the other. So, this debate focuses on Causation arguments to prove evolution. Any Correlation argument is irrelevant. Allow me to give an example:People who wear helmets generally prevent damage to their head.These events are correlated. Imagine a scenario where nothing else correlates with preventing damage to the head besides a helmet. This does not prove that helmets are the cause of damage prevention. Instead, one must explain that the cause of damage prevention is that helmets are a hard covering that protect the head from collision. I hope this shows how correlation and causation are two separate ideas.Pro cannot argue that since there is correlation between the General Theory of Evolution and the fossil record, and that since he doesn't consider any other theory that might explain the fossil record as accurate (i.e. there are no other theories/ Evolution is the only theory) 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.My opponent also gave two sources- one of bacteria producing an extra tail, and moths being produces with darker colors. He then makes the conclusion that this proves the General Theory of Evolution. I disagree.The bacteria producing an extra tail is a mutation. This is known as duplication mutation (1). This is not new information, which is what the General Theory of Evolution requires, but this is a duplication of the same information. I don't see how this proves his point.The moths being produced with darker colors is natural selection (2) at work. However, natural selection can only pick from information that is already there; it does not create new information. In the case of the moths, certain moths arrived at the point to where they could only produce dark colors (as opposed to before to where they could produce a variation of different colors). This is actually a loss of information. Eventually, these dark moths became extinct. Still, a loss of information and a species. I don't see how this proves his point.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 occured 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.Actually, as previously stated, Evolution requires the proof of new information produced in species. As there is no proof that new information is created (as Natural Selection can only select from information that is already there), then it becomes an argument from ignorance to suppose the Theory of Evolution. (I assume that my opponent will bring in an argument to how mutations can add new information. This is also false, and should he try this argument, I will show how it can be refuted.)CONCLUSIONSMy opponent assumes that new information has been added, which has not been observed, and then supposes that this unproven assertion correlates to the Theory of Evolution, and then since he only accepts this theory, by process of elimination he than assumes that this correlation must imply causation, without showing any proof as to the cause. I hope my arguments were easy to follow, and I look forward to seeing how my opponent will respond. Cheers!REFERENCES(1) http://www.biology-online.org...(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...