The Theory of Evolution Is Valid

I thank Subutai for an interesting, competative, and informative debate. D-1- Science and Empirical limits. d-a. Evolution is not observed My opponent begins with presenting the definitions of the theory of evolution and natural selection, and then commits the fallacy of equilivication; he changed what he means by "evolution" in the middle of the argument. He announced that he is going to defend the theory of evolution, which is the claim that a single cell is the source of all life, and then started defending that the genetics are different between generations. I must say, for me at least, ambiguity is one of the most annoying methods salesmen can use. My opponent also makes the claim that natural selection is equivalent to the theory of evolution. However, when you select something, by definition, you choose from something pre-existing. Rather, the theory of evolution needs "Natural invention". Therefore, my opponent needed to demonstrate that random mutations or any alternative mechanisms are capable of creating multi- cellularity, organs, biological systems, and so forth. My opponent showed no such thing. My opponent then pretends that he have the ability to easily answer my questions in favor of evolution, and to do that he first attempts demeans the questions by claiming that they have no point. My opponent only solidifies my argument; he makes extraordinary and vague claims that it happened without presenting a mechanism or evidence. The more these claims are examined, the more absurd they appear, and the less sense they make. They would roughly expand like this: 1- Beavers were once intelligent creatures. Unfortunately, their hearing somehow evolved to not tolerate the sound of running water. 2- The intelligent and uncannily determined beavers refused to succumb to the pesky sound of water and refused to escape. Thus, they decided to block the sound of water. Thus, they "Figured out" that placing countless twigs with mud is strong enough to resist and silence the stream of water. 3- The beavers continuously developed their engineering skills, and their descendants managed to perfect the dam building project with the knowledge their ancestors taught until the sound of water no longer hurt. They utilized their intelligence to build tunnels and chambers within the dam. As an unexpected bonus, the dam actually turned out to be useful; they could block predators and store food. 4- As generations passed, an unintelligent beaver hot-wired with instincts containing all of it's ancestors knowledge of dam-building was born. How? No clue is given. 5- The descendants of this special beaver were naturally selected due to their automated and systematic dam building. The original intelligent beavers were unable to match up with the new beavers due to the slow learning process required for children. They were completely wiped out as their intelligence was unable to adapt, or that they forgot how to use their intelligence. The intelligent spiders suffer from the same problems as the beaver. My opponent never answered my question which is "How". He simply presents statements like they are facts: "And so it started". Science is supposed to attack bad explanations and challenge them. Apparently, this is different with evolution. Many scenarios can be made, and none of them look remotely sound. It would appear obvious that no such evidence exists to support the scientific possibility of my opponent's hypothesieses. Therefore my origin claims stands as they have not been proven false: 1- The answers compatible with the ToE to my questions are absurd, silly, and astronomically imaginative. 2- The said answers lack any sort of evidence whatsoever, making them mere conjectures and imaginations. Then, the theory of evolution would be irrational. Therefore, invalid. d-b. Untestable and unfalsifiable My opponent proposes more ways to falsify evolution. However, my argument stands as those themselves cannot falsify evolution. 1- Fossil record showing no change over time: Did "Punctured equilibrium" or "Stasis" falsify evolution? That option is long gone. As stated before, the theory of evolution can easily accommodate any observation effortlessly. Therefore, it has no explanatory power, and can't be falsified. 2- confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating: This assumes that mutations are capable of producing the claims made by the theory of evolution. The existence of such mutations causing the effects claimed by the ToE has not been demonstrated to exist. Which begs the question: How can that which does not exist accumulate? 3- observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously. The claim that organisms were created supernaturally or spontaneously would also be proven to be less plausible, if not falsified, if the claims made by the theory of evolution were at least demonstrated once. This criteria is meaningless, unless it is assumed that the theory of evolution is valid. Which would defeat the purpose of this debate, and is not the case judging from the presented evidence. I doubt that my opponent read the argument I presented regarding the quote by Darwin. Therefore, that argument is dropped by my opponent. To further demonstrate my point, I would like to ask this question: "Can you demonstrate that our existence Could Not Possibly be the result of aliens creating us with false memories a week ago? Again, it is impossible to disprove conjectures. The burden of proof is not fulfilled. d-c. Lack of evidence My opponent goes with the same issue as the beginning. An equivocation fallacy. Apparently, our debate is not about the idea that the species have evolved one from another. It is no longer mutations or other mechanisms creating incredibly complex designs. The bar was dropped to arguing that generations are different from each other, not sure about you, but that is not particularly jaw dropping. My opponent argues that peppered moth is evidence for the theory of evolution. I do not care whether the moths rest on trees or whether they were glued for the picture, or whether bats eat moths, or whether birds see in UV vision. Species selectively killing, dying, and reproducing is not the theory of evolution. It would seem that my opponent have forfeited the defense of the idea that the decendants of a single cell accounts for all the species that existed. That is due to the lack of evidence. This is simple: If the evidence for evolution is not found yet, then it is not science yet. D-2. (Poor) Fossils Record I did not take the quote out of context, or even interrupt it for that matter. I simply copied the longest quote I could find to minimize any misinterpretation from readers. If Stephen found no problems in the fossil record, why would he introduce punctured equilibrium? d-a. Failure of predictions My opponent claims that the Coelacanth claimed to be found could possibly be confused with another fossil without any evidence. My opponent further confirms that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable since we haven't waited long enough for certain species to evolve. My opponent also blatantly expresses the problem with the theory of evolution. For every problem there are "Plethora of answers" and ad hocs ready to defend it at any cost. Unfortunately, none of these answers have any evidence at all. Therefore, the best answer is: "The theory of evolution is false". My opponent defends the claim that a raccoon-like fox is the ancestor of whale, justifying it with another highly implausible and evident-less claim. So if we believe this, we are ought to believe this? That claim is nothing but a completely fictional scenario. I asked my opponent for evidence of such claim, my opponent provided none. The claim is false anyway since whales existed before the raccoon-sized claimed ancestor. (1) I find it interesting that my opponent would blindly believe claims equivalent in evidence to fairytales. This leads me to question the validity of believing in evolution. (1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...