Evolution is not well supported

Well, sadly my opponent seems to recognise his arguments against the motion are weak, so he tries to 'hedge his bets' by debating the phrase.This is disrespectful to the audience, who came expecting a debate about evolution.I'm not going to validate my opponents claim by responding, because it is patently fraudulent. So fraudulent it would insult the intelligence of the audience to assume I need to explain it.I will continue debating the topic, and more fool my opponent who chose to provide no evidence at all in his previous postFirst I will deal with my opponents "arguments", then I will introduce yet more information which shows that evolution is poorly substantiated."Regarding creationism: I will gladly discuss creationism (intelligent design) based on its scientific merits when an actual hypothesis that makes predictions exists. At this moment nothing of that source exists so we can say creationism is not a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis."Seeing as you've provided no argument substantiating evolution, we have room to talk about this.You have a bad case of Scientism. That is, you are stuck in an irrational scientific paradigm whereby you think science is the ultimate and exclusive explanatory mechanism. Natural science is only the study of one phenomena after another through a causal chain of events, ad infinitum. The assumption of ad infinitum, is its inherent flaw and bias.Consider a character in a computer game...This character can look around, and realise that his world is governed by law. But if he synthetically limits his explanatory scope to the study of observable causes, he can ultimately only infer that the universe which he lives somehow exists necessarily. He can never get to the source code on the hard drive or enter the world which it exists. This is the position of the science paradigm and subscribing atheist.But, released of this synthetic explanatory parameter, a critical thinking character might ask "how the power of the laws were set?" , "why are the power of these laws contingent, all working together to produce a coherent, stable, productive universe?, "why should it be that this experience is always fresh and challenging and beautiful and sad and happy and testing?". Released of the synthetic dogma, this critical thinking character has the means to arrive closer to the truth.The lack of positive naturalistic "evidence", is irrelevant because science is inherently incapable of providing such evidence."How my opponent denies a fossil record for a gray whale placed in front of him is remarkable. Then to goes on to use analogies of cars for evolution, however maybe my opponent does not realize that cars (and Ariel Washing liquid) do not contain molecules that evolve (i.e. DNA mutations). As such the analogy is absurd."Because this "evidence" is deduced only from the faulty premise. You have limited your explanatory scope to naturalistic causes, necessarily arrived at evolution, and then line up skulls to try and prove it. Then, after you line them up, you consider this "evidence", for evolution, because your premise directly stipulates that it must have happened. This isn't positive evidence, it is deduced as evidence purely on a faulty premise.Then he says cars "do not contain molecules that evolve", well, "evolution" is what you are trying to substnatiate here. You are assuming evolution without substantiation, to defend evolution. Patently circular logic."Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, p. 216Then my opponent says that evolution is "DNA mutations", funny. No, as i have already pointed out, new genes need to be created for evolution to happen. It doesn't matter how many times an 1000 gene creature mutates its 1000 genes. Its never going to become a 25000 gene creature. My opponent has not described any mechanism at all to explain how this would be done. ". ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York My opponent then returns to argue the definition of a molecule! Incredible!As for the Cambrian Explosion, he says "The Cambrian Explosion is not molecular evolution." So offers no argument at all!*This debate has never been about molecular evolution. It has always, obviously, distinctly and succinctly been about the general theory of evolution which argues that basic molecular forms of life evolved into complex creatures like man, through means of natural selection acting on mutation.*"BTW regarding the work of Barow and Tipler, I am not sure why you said I was misleading people when all I am showing is that small changes in genotype can lead to massive changes in phenotype. That is less mutations needed."We all know this, but your source http://evolution.berkeley.edu...doesn't even mention Barrow and Tipler, much less provide any refutation of their work. Anyone can see with ctrl-f. You have just posted an arbitrary definition and claimed its a refutation."I also want to clarify something. What does my opponent mean by genetically identical? I (a male) am genetically identical to a female, as we are humans. So when you say Italian wall lizards are genetically identical, what are you referring too?"He is referring to the source I posted which said that they are "genetically identical". I would think this refers to the Lizards being genetically identical. Not sure if my opponent is trying to angle an arguement. If he does, it will be very lonely.My opponent then tries to manufacture a charge suggesting I am trying to change the debate topic as I said both "I argued that for a lesser complex creature to develop into a complex one,"(1), and later "Mutations aren't NEW genes, and NEW genes are needed for a fish to evolve into a human".(2)This is just obviously desperation. In (2) I am merely giving an example of (1). I don't know why i am even validating this charge with a response.Having addressed my opponents "arguments" and all of my arguments still untouched, I offer an additional interesting fact!"..over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical SchoolRationalwiki responds to this quote:"Evolution is an extraordinary breakthrough in its own right."http://rationalwiki.org...Evolutionary biology is just a stagnant black hole. All other disciplines of Biology work perfectly fine without it. You would have thought it would be useful for something, if it were true.