Evolution is an incorrect theory

I will now respond, addressing my opponent's contentions. Opponent's contention 1: (I'm interpreting this as he doesn't explicitly state the actual argument). The "cell that. .. we evolved from did not know how to produce hair, so something had to give it information how to. " My opponent appears to have changed his argument. At first (in round 2), he was referring to natural selection adding information; however this appears to be implying that nothing in evolution adds information. If he means the first, then I'd agree. I'd state that natural selection "refines" (selects) information that is already there for future generations. If he means the second, then I'd disagree; I'd state that genetic mutations add information by changing (mutating) the DNA. (Please see my previous arguments for the source of this). Opponent's contention 2: Good and bad aren't just opinions as the majority of people agree on what is good and what is bad. This is an obvious ad populum (also known as an appeal to majority) fallacy, as it assumes that majority equals truth. It doesn't. One person has an opinion. If a lot of people share an opinion, it's still just an opinion. I need not refute any more as my point stands; good and bad are just opinions and an opinion does not make an argument by itself. Opponent's contention 3: "Good" changes will in fact negatively affect an organism in the long term. This argument has strange conclusions. "The first example described a experiment to house E. coli cells for several generations to see what is produced. The cells did thrive very well based on changes that occurred to them. " By changes, my opponent is referring to genetic mutations and natural selection, supporting my argument. The rest is a red herring fallacy, as my opponent just consented my argument with the afore quoted statement. Nevertheless, I will continue to refute. "If you look up the Exact Same Experiment, you will find that when released into nature, the "good changes" went away or actually hurt them. " This is probably due to the fact that suddenly these cells found themselves in a completely different environment very quickly. This is like saying that: "However, when humans were placed on the Moon with no protective suits, the "good changes" went away and actually hurt them. " This is not a perfect analogy, I'll admit, because the "good changes" didn't hurt these poor humans in itself; but my point stands. Of course an organism will die off or be otherwise unprepared if it is released into a completely unnatural environment too quickly and by unnatural interference. I believe my argument stands. Opponent's contention 4 and 5 (as these are essentially the same): There are no (or very few) transitional fossils. My opponent contradicts himself very quickly, by saying first that: "Their is no fossil with a half evolved eyes, legs, lungs, bones, ect. " and then stating that: "These things [fossils] all come along during events such as the Cambian Explosion or other such events. " First there were none, and then, there were. This is what my opponent is stating, and a point is not made. My opponent also misrepresents my argument, too. He uses the word "must" to imply that I am assuming that a bridge must exist. I didn't say a bridge "must" exist; rather I said that the evidence constituting to a virtual bridge is very strong with all the similarities between this fish and that amphibian. (Please see my round two argument for the specific phrasing). Lastly, I would like to mention that my opponents sources are probably using a foundational bias fallacy. Four out of the five sources have names (eg, answersingenesis. org. .. ) that imply this foundation bias. While I cannot prove this; therefore this is not an argument, I would like to urge voters to take this into consideration when checking the "trust level" of my opponent's sources. Because of the above refuting, I'll extend all of my arguments. Thank you, and I await your response.