Evolution is not well supported

Thanks to my opponent. I feel it is necessary to adress the critical facts in this fallicious opening statement and not address any other arguments that you have made. I have to do this, as it is no use blindly leading people to read something that does not support the proposition of the debate.My opponent has said that this debate is not dealing with abiogenesis, but in fact is dealing with molecular evolution.Then my opponent goes on to define Molecular evolution as: Molecular evolution studies the mutation of basic cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA and proteins. I will agree with this definition completely. However, this does not mean as my opponent pointed out that "This debate , then, pertains to the idea that basic cellular molecules vertically evolved over billions of years, explaining creatures like man." As molecules (non living) changing into humans (living) is in fact not evolution, but the concept of abiogenesis. This I explained in my first round statement, and in fact disagrees with my opponents source given for molecular evolution.(1) Maybe my opponent would like to clarify why his definitions are so far removed from the scientific sources cited?In fact my opponent acknowledges this when he says the following "Abiogenesis pertains to how life arose from non-living material." So I am not sure how this confusion is arising.Definitions are extremely important when you are debating scientific concepts. Let me elaborate with an analogy on definitions to drive my point home. Christianity: the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.(2)However, if I want to make this definition fit an argument for Allah and Buddha. I could redefine the definition to suit my needs as follows.Christianity: the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ otherwise known as Buddha, who was the son of the almighty Allah.I am sure everyone will agree this does not make sense, however it fits my needs. Should this definition be accepted? The answer is no. You cannot make up definitions to suit your needs.Again as stated in my opening argument, I will accept my opponents concession.I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://biomed.brown.edu...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNB: Everything below is not for inclusion in voting decisions but rather to educate.My opponents initial statement, while interesting doe not address any issue about molecular evolution, except trying to point out that there is some kind of conspiracy theory among scientists. This is not how the scientific method works,(1) I would think it best my opponent tries to understand the scientific method before making such fallacious statement such as "to be a member of the congregation; full of dignified, esteemed and well-funded scientists, one must subscribe to the beliefs of the inspiring orator speaking aloft.". Utter rubbish.My opponent points out that we are at a time in science where it is taboo to question evolution. This is not taboo, its illogical as the evidence supporting evolution is enormous.(2) Additionally, there is no other scientific theory that explains how humans came about other than evolution. Creationism for example has no scientific foundation or scientific facts supporting it, in fact Creationism (Intelligent Design) is not even a scientific theory.My opponent says that it seems to him that "The theory that man developed from something only a fraction the complexity of yeast, it seems to me, is not supported well enough to substantiate the afformentioned stigma and compulsory indoctrination." However, the evidence is there as can be seen in reference (2). Additionally, there is evidence to show that multicellular life can indeed come from unicellular life. (3,4) As such my opponents assertion that something complex (multicellular) cannot evolve from something less complex (single cellular) is demonstrably false.My opponent then goes on to say that "No one has ever witnessed one kind of creature turning into another, only variations within kinds of creatures. Yet we should. We should find the fossil record replete with examples of intermediary life forms, yet we don't". Again a demonstrably false claim, as the fossil record shows hundreds of transition fossils for multiple species. This can be seen in the image below showing the evolution of the Gray Whale. Picture Source.(5) Or maybe my opponent may want to look at all the fossils demonstrating the human transitional fossils.(6) As such my opponents argument claiming their are no transitional fossils is a fallacious one. Next my opponent says then that humans cannot develop from apes, as the genes differ between apes and humans. Again in this argument my opponent is showing a complete lack of understanding of evolution, as evolution is vertical (i.e. humans and apes share a common ancestor) and not lateral (i.e. humans evolved from current day apes).(6) Is the next argument why are there still monkeys? Then my opponent talks about he fact that the chance of evolution happen is impossible as it is too improbable. "For instance, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth." This line of reasoning is illogical, as it dismisses the fact that small genetic changes can cause a large phenotypic change.(7) Additionally, mutation most commonly can work in tandem with other mutations.(8) So while a single mutation could do nothing, when three factors combine at the same time we would see a phenomenal change. Additionally, maybe my opponent would like to explain how this is improbable when the mutation rate in a single chimpanzee diploid genome can be around 175 mutation per generation.(9) This means over 20 generations there have been 3500 mutations in a direct one child offspring path, if we start factoring in more children this number grow exponentially i.e. each offspring has two children results in 17500 mutations. On a cellular level this mutation rate is even faster considering a generation takes only one day. I also want to clarify something. What does my opponent mean by genetically identical? I (a male) am genetically identical to a female, as we are humans. So when you say Italian wall lizards are genetically identical, what are you referring too? Again, I want to reiterate all these arguments presented by my opponent have nothing to do with the proposition. The fact I am replying at all is I feel the need to educate. As such I await the concession.(1) http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...(3) http://www.nature.com...(4) http://www.pnas.org...(5) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(6) http://www.talkorigins.org...(7) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(8) https://www.genome.gov...(9) http://www.genetics.org...