The Correlation/Causation argument does not disprove the theory of Evolution

Romanii, I hope that you had a great weekend, and I also hope that by my submitting my arguments very close to the deadline, you will have ample time to conclude this debate with intelligent arguments.Before getting into the arguments, my opponent accused me of the fallacy of authority. I did not say, a smart person said this, so it must be true, which would be fallacious. In stark contrast, I quoted a scientist speaking in field who gave a testimony. My opponent may not like the quote, as seen from how it was completely ignored and refutes many of my opponents claims. Quoting scholars on this subject is not a fallacy- they are the ones who have the testimonies of the evidence, so it is to them we must go to when understanding this issue. My opponent must attack the evidence that the scholars give, not me quoting scholars.Now, I do apologize for not giving a detailed rebuttal to the analogy analysis- I had reached my character limits and did not deem this as the most important topic.We both agree and understand that correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, in order for the Theory of Evolution to have causual evidence of its accuracy, we should be able to see evidence of this happening today. This present day causal evidence is where the bulk of the argument rests, which is why I'm comitting most of my characters to refuting his "proof" for Evolution. If I can refute evert claim of causal evience, leaving no causal evidence to show that Evolution is true, then the correlation/causation argument does not only cast doubt on Evolution, it disproves the theory.My opponent has argued that since we have seen mutations and natural selection occur in different species, this proves Evolution. I have already argued why this is not the case. And still, this is only correlation to the Theory of Evolution, as other models can account for mutations and natural selection.My opponent argues that different organisms have the same genetic code, so this gives no problem to adding to it to get new organisms. However, I refuted this with the video game analogy. He does not like me using the NES to WII analogy as he can plainly see the implications of this analogy. Fine. I'll change the analogy to one he won't refute. Two NES games: Mario Bros. and Donkey Kong. Both for the same system, both have the same code, but both have different functions. If one were to just manipulate the levels of Mario Bros, they will never be able to change it into Donkey Kong. This is my point. Two organisms are also written with the same genetic code (i.e. a fish and a human). The same is true with one video game for a NES and another video game for the NES. Genetic code is information, and I have already argued how mutations and natural selection cannot add information."A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species,. That's a common idea people have, that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is <not> the cause of evolutionary change." -Gould, evolutionary biologist (1)My opponent argues that the fossil record supports evolution, when I have already given the testimony of a scientist who had studied the fossil record and said otherwise. Pro: However, I will be honest: I have never heard a valid scientific argument against evolution.Pro, I feel as though you ignore my arguments, and then re-iterate your original statements saying how evolution isn't proven false. It seems as though you don't take any argument against evolution seriously. I would like to ask you to please carefully re-read my arguments, as I feel that I have refuted your claims countless times.I made the claim that the origin of the universe is the one instance where God is needed as an explanation. I did not make a mistake of grouping cosmology with the theory of evolution, as 1, The General Theory of Evolution includes (and requires) Big Bang cosmology, and 2, in the Young Earth Creation paradigm, the origin of the universe and life would all have come through at roughly the same time, so it is fair to group them together in either case.I made the claim that evolutionary thought keeps changing. Yes, the nature of science is to keep building upon new discoveries everyday. But when a theory keeps getting proven wrong, so new interpretations have to be created to fit the new evidence, this shows that the theory is wrong, and a new theory is needed. The nature of science is to change our theories when new evidence comes in, not keep old theories and change them every time new evidence comes in.My opponent seems stuck on the Miller-Urey experiment being the proof for life by inorganic materials. This is a dead end; these results did not produce life, nor do they even imply that life could have been started this way. I already have shown why scientists are looking at Mars, and some are even looking at transpermia as different ways that life could have come to earth, because they realize the impossibility of it happening on earth.My opponent shows how some living fossils have had some change. This is irrelevant; when I first brought up living fossils, I said that some had changed a little and some had changed not at all. First, the main point is that the living fossils did not evolve into other animals, and some living fossils didn't even change at all. Second, my opponent says that I seem to think that living fossils do not change at all, which is blatantly dishonest, as I stated this in my initial argument for them. My opponent then argues that these living fossils have the capability of adapting to changes in the environments. In round 3 he argued that the environments did not change, and now he is arguing that the environments did change but these organisms were not affected. Okay, so then why would we conclude the changes in environments is what evovled all of the other organisms (which we cannot prove were not as adaptable to the living fossils, and it is logical to assume that if the living fossils did not evolve into other organisms through changed environments, then no organism will change). Pro, you again have successfuly disproven evolution.My opponent does not have any support for any evidence of causation for the Theory of Evolution. He ignored all of my refutations against it, and even admitted that evolution does not morph one ogranism into another even with the change of environments.I look forward to the conclusion round. Good luck; cheers!(1) MUTATIONS ARE NON-PRODUCTIVE , STEPHEN J. GOULD, HarvardLecture, Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980