Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

>Thank you Kleptin for your thorough, if predictable, response. "My opponent first begins by stating that my framing of the term "Evolution" is deliberately adjusted in my favor, he accuses me of making a definition that is too vague and wants instead to submit his own definition," >As predicted, the whole debate rests on this question of definition: >When I made the original statement "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence" I of course meant the theory that; All life evolved from a single cell amoeba and that humans have themselves evolved in this way through the lineage of an ape-like ancestor. >I would challenge all DDO members to honestly ask themselves IF this is the generally perceived, universally accepted definition one assumes one means when one uses the term Evolution. >If my opponent now wishes to merely state that Evolution is nothing more than 'variation within Families of creatures' then I simply have no argument with him. But let us not pretend there is a single shred of evidence that one Family of animal has ever become another. There is not. >My opponents, frankly bizarre, contention that I must accept his (or at least his sources) definition is utterly ridiculous. It is exactly the same as if I were debating whether the Holocaust occurred and my opponent demanded that I accept Neo-Nazi doctrine as gospel. It is that serious and that ridiculous. "Evolution The change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. " >No, this is simply BREEDING, nothing else. Has a wolf 'evolved' into a Chihuahua? "In addition, he cannot explain the presence of Mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells, supported by Endosymbiotic Theory" >Neither can you: Hence the link. "We have also successfully altered the DNA of microbes and allowed them to reproduce, changing their DNA and the DNA of their progeny in the laboratories. In fact, this is how Insulin is made; genetic reprogramming of yeast." >We? and this only proves it takes intelligence to create anything, not blind chance. "The peppered moths, finches in the Galapagos, The fossil record, " >All evidence of breeding. (misleadingly referred to as micro-evolution) If an African man has a child with a white English woman, their child will share certain traits from each parent, what you have to ask yourself is: Is this 'evolution' or simply breeding? "In addition, many so-called "transitional" fossils have been found to link two previously "unrelated" species, providing evidence that they developed from the same ancestor." >Who needs fossils? No-one denies that a made-up classification of 'species' are related because they are from the same Family. "A family or a kind as a form of categorization is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific way to categorize families or kinds, so I will throw out his argument about families and kinds until he can prove that families and kinds are categorized objectively." Many so-called 'species' interbreed, so this is clearly a nonsensical term. No two Families EVER interbreed. Dogs and wolfs cross-breed and are not the same 'species'. There are two 'species' of wolf, gray, or timber, wolf is classified as Canis lupus. The red wolf is classified as Canis rufus. A dog is classified as a Canis domesticus. Clearly, not the same 'species' but the same Family, Canidea. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... "My opponent's suggestion that Information cannot be added is false. Here are observed examples and a proposed mechanism:" >These are theories and yes, a PROPOSED mechanism. (how do you dare type it?) Of course there is genetic variation, a 'switching on and off' process but unless you begin with the original archetype then how would you know the original code sequence? "My response has addressed every word of my opponent's counterpoint even though it was unnecessary because this debate is about whether or not evidence for Evolutionary Theory EXISTS, not whether or not it is true. And I have listed my pieces of evidence, which work for my first definition of evolution, my opponent's wrong definition, and for the two definitions I provided (just to make sure that my opponent does not cry foul)." >My opponent has presented a juggling act rather than an argument. He has concentrated on presenting evidence for 'micro evolution' while evading the issue at hand. If nothing else we have at least exposed where the respective camps are dug in. We are, however, no further along in the debate. >I stand by my original statement ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.