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

Thank you for your argument. It is evident that you have thought it out quite thoroughly.You started by asking me to provide an example of something which would falsify evolution, so I will just get that out of the way first. The best example I can think of is if scientists started to find fossils demonstrating a sustained regression rather than the sustained progression that natural selection would favor. PART 1: DOUBT DOES NOT DISPROVE (Reinforcement)My opponent has provided an analogy to demonstrate why the correlation/causation argument DOES completely disprove Evolution:"Every time I walk under a ladder, bad occurrences happen to me for the rest of the day. This happens every time I walk under a ladder, so I conclude that walking under a ladder is the reason for my bad day. Someone may tell me, 'Correlation does not imply causation' to prove me wrong. If I were to say, 'But, there are no other possibilities for my bad days besides my walking under the ladder. So it must be because of the ladder. You are only casting doubt on my claim, not disproving it.'"However, there are a number of problems with this analogy:1) There is a much stronger correlation between the evidence and the theory of Evolution than is represented in the analogy. To make the analogy more accurate, Con would have to add that not just him, but millions people around the world have been experiencing the same ladder phenomenon. 2) The analogy fails to represent the fact that there has been some evidence found from which causation could possibly be implied (observed micro-evolution). In order to represent this, Con would have to add that SOME ladders have been found to have magical properties associated with bad luck. While this does not ensure that ALL ladders have the same magical properties, it can possibly be inferred that all ladders do, since all ladders have been causing bad luck (i.e. while micro-evolution does not prove that all life evolved through that evolutionary mechanism, we can possibly infer that, since all life has the same DNA and all the correlating evidence supports it.)3) Even without the corrections noted in points 1 and 2, the correlation/causation argument STILL doesn't completely disprove the ladder/bad luck hypothesis. Walking under a ladder COULD still be what is causing the bad luck, although it is unlikely. WITH the corrections noted in points 1 and 2, it becomes highly likely that the ladders are what cause the bad luck, and the correlation/causation argument merely casts doubt upon that theory.4) The walking-under-ladder hypothesis has been falsified and is a well-known superstition, causing all of this to sound much more ridiculous then it is in reality. What we call "magic" in this analogy represents scientific evidence in the real world.On the surface, the analogy proves my opponent's point, however, when edited to properly represent the situation, we see that the correlation/causation argument does nothing more than cast doubt on a theory that is almost surely true. I could feasibly end my argument here, since I have already achieved the resolution of the debate, but for the sake of proving how minimal the doubt caused by the correlation/causation argument is, I will address all of my opponent's contentions against the theoryPART 2: EVOLUTION HAS NO HOLES IN IT(Analogy) "What the evolutions would have to argue, is that given enough variations within the original Super Mario Bros computer code, over time that code could change into Super Mario Galaxy. The problem is, these two video games have codes developed for completely different systems with entirely different structures"This analogy contains a false comparison. The video games in question are NOT designed for different game systems. All organisms have the same type of DNA. Their genomes are all made of the same stuff, so it is perfectly feasible for an organism to gradually mutate into a much more complex one over time. "There is evidence that mutations can add new functions. So what? This is not causal evidence of radically changing one genetic code of an organism to become another one over any period of time."That is correct. There is no absolute evidence of causation (I stress the "absolute" because there is evidence of possible causation). However, like I have said before, it is not necessary, since lack of it does not disprove. All that is necessary to be proven is that such a change is POSSIBLE. And that already has been proven by the Human Genome Project.We share 98% of our DNA with Pigs (1), This means that all it takes for such a radical change between organisms is a change in 2% of the DNA. That is perfectly feasible, especially over a period as long as tens of millions of years. And it isn't just pigs. Such a close similarity in genomes has been detected with many species which are extremely different from humans (2)."We see living fossils (1), or animals that have changed very little or not at all for millions of years. "A mutation can only be considered "beneficial" when it provides the individual and ADVANTAGE in its respective environment. Therefore, if a species is already ideally fit to the environment, then mutated individuals will not have any advantage over other individuals, and thus the population will not evolve. Such is the case with "living fossils""The General Theory of Evolution requires abiogenesis, or, that life came from non-living materials. This has never been observed. It is an arbitrary assumption to say that abiogenesis is possible."This is a very tired argument. I don't wish to be condescending in any way, but my opponent seriously needs to read up on biochemistry. This was debunked in 1951 when the Miller-Urey experiment proved that simple organic compounds could be formed from inorganic substances. Modern day scientists have figured out the chemical compositions of all of the most complex organic compounds (including Amino acids and DNA). There are tons of books detailing exactly how those complex compounds turned the first primitive cells, and how those primitive cells "teamed up" into more complex ones (Endosymbiosis), which in turn evolved into the first micro and macro organisms. (3)(4)(5)(6) If I had enough characters remaining I would write it all out, but I don't. It would take at least 1000 characters for just a basic overview. PART 3: SUMMARY (More conclusion-rebuttals)"If one person makes an argument for a scientific theory, and another rebuts with the argument that without any causal evidence, there is no reason to accept this theory, and then the person is unable to show causal evidence, then the Correlation/Causation Argument does disprove a theory"As I showed through the criticism of your analogy, this is simply untrue. "A blind process of change can alter the established information and chane it. A process of chance, though, cannot account for establishing new sequences that morph one organism into another. "The mutations are random. Natural selection, however, is not. The environment only favors the most beneficial mutations, causing all other mutations to fade into non-existence. Over time, beneficial mutations collect in a population until it is a totally new species (7) (it is a bit more complicated than that, but speciation is a complex topic and I have roughly 100 characters left),"My opponent has no [absolute] causal proof for his claim"And absence of it does not disprove Evolution.I look forward to the next round.SOURCES:(1) http://www.abc.net.au...(2) http://genecuisine.blogspot.com...(3) http://people.chem.duke.edu...(4) http://www.britannica.com...(5) http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu...(6) http://biology.kenyon.edu...(7) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...