Evolution is wrong

In my first argument I stated some of the many flaws of evolution. My opponent then presented his beliefs and how they would compensate from my accusations. I will start from the beginning. I would posit that to fully prove evolution one must analyze and explore the past. If a structure has a week foundation it can not stand. Without knowing how evolution started you can not know how it will continue on. Because Darwin did not believe that abiogenesis was a fine place to start does not mean it is not a good place to start. I admit that I do not read science weekly but even the claims that my opponent brings up do not support evolution. It has been known that life can survive off of chemical energy but this still does not refute the facts. In a primitive ocean even deep underground the necessary chemicals and minerals like sugars, aminos, ect react with each other. For example amino and sugars react and destroy each other or phosphoric acid forms an insoluble salt with calcium and sink to the bottom of a primordial sea. The energy, any energy that forms bonds would destroy the molecules that were bonding above or below the sea. The probability of getting even one life form being created, even the ones from my opponent's link, is still extremely small not counting the huge amount of life forms that have really been on this planet. There is no simple organism. Even the basic cell is more complex then this country's military this is not even including the many other variables like temperature, other reactions, changes of exposure to energy, Lifespan, and other things we can not even begin to consider. My opponent claims that through the middle man the probability of evolution is higher. RNA, although not nearly as complex as DNA, is still highly complex and requires much of the same things as DNA does. Furthermore, RNA is not nearly complex enough to run even a cell half as complex as the basic cells we have today. It would make many mistakes and mistakes are biologically devastating to any organism. It does not even come close to nullifying the probability argument and does not even cut the statistics in half. My opponent is not considering the other variables that go along with his statement. The cell is the most complex machine ever built. It ether all works or nothing works at all. Consider a mouse trap, if you take away anything it will not work. If you take away a portion of the nucleus, like DNA it cannot recreate or function. My point is not only that evolution contradicts itself regarding the fossil records and the timeline; I am stating that my opponent has no cumulative evidence of the fossil record concerning evolved life forms. My opponent stated that there was 30 different example of primitive evolved man (although he did not go into detail. He merely stated it like it was a fact.). What he failed to mention was that many are fake or anomalies. I agree that hundreds of thousands of fossils have been found but none have any relation to evolution. They simply show animals we have today or extinct life forms going through Micro evolution. With evolutionists grasping for straws I would be surprised that they would not show there cards as to offer more evidence to there theory. My opponent speaks of just one half and half life form (again I mention there should be many half and half creatures) found in the artic. I am pointing out that just because a creature looks to be half in half does not cancel out the fact that this creature could be its own unique species. Take the platypus, he is his own unique creature not stuck between two fazes of evolution. Fossils show us little for the theory of evolution. They tell us that this creature died. They do not show us what its offspring is or the entire family or other variables. Evolution is survival of the fittest; life forms continue to better themselves. Yet, we look at the many animals that co exist, that are dependant on each other. How are they bettering themselves by changing to be completely dependent on each other. To evolve and change a cell you need a new set of code, you need new information for the cell to change. Were did this information come from? Think of soup; if you have the proper ingredients and you still don't know how to make it then it will not work. You can not get a new code for evolving by genetic error or mistake. A mistake will kill the cell or eventually destroy it like cancer does. Genetic mutation always ends in destruction or corrects itself. It does not evolve into a new species. Car makers like ford and chevron create their parts to be interchangeable. This is because the design is genius, it is a good idea. Chevron did not evolve from ford. With these flaws pointed out and many more you can not believe in evolution without at least some doubt. Scientists are continually changing it because of error in the theory. I hope you examine what I say closely. I look forward to you reply Lecretius.