Evolution is an incorrect theory

Opponent's Contention 1: "Mutations only rearrange the information already present in you present in your DNA"; this I will interpret as ""Mutation don't add information; they only rearrange it"". I'll refine my refute from my previous posts. Some genetic mutations add information and others subtract it; some might (as you say) rearrange the information, but to say that mutations *only* rearrange the information is simply a lie[1]. Many cases have been seen where DNA adds or subtracts information[1]. My opponent does not even cite a source for this, either and thus "we see now" doesn't hold up. Opponent's Contention 2: Good and bad are not opinions. This has gone off the topic a bit, but I'll respond anyway. My opponent doesn't really give any evidence despite stating that "I thought you would agree. .. " (which I would), however whether I agree or not on whether certain mutations are good or bad is not an argument. It's opinion. My opponent moves onto a semi-red herring fallacy about an animal's ability to reproduce and live a "normal life". I would also ask my opponent to define "normal life" for an animal. Opponent's Contention 3: Mutations. Again, I'm not sure as to what this argument is actually about when it comes to disproving evolution, as it is all based off another mis-phrasing of my argument. My opponent states that: "you state that it should be expected for something to die when changes occur quickly. " I didn't - not at all. I was trying to explain that unnatural changes by unnatural causes happening too quickly for an organism to adapt would probably cause it to get into negative situations and die. I didn't - at any point - state that something changing quickly would kill an organism; which is what you misphrased my argument to come across as. My opponent makes a five stage argument in an attempt to show why this straw man is wrong; but despite this straw man, the E Coli died anyway, which is what my argument (and your straw man) predicted. As for the five stage argument itself, you make an assumption that this lab E-coli and the natural E-coli are the same E-coli, but at no point did you state this. It appears that: A. There's wild E-coli in the wild B. Then there's lab E-coli that had no changes done to it; but they could have still originated in the lab. C. "This implies that it is normal E. coli, which should do fine in nature. " No, it really doesn't. I believe your straw man is revealed and your argument refuted. At this point, my opponent goes onto my contention 2 (transitional fossils) and makes no mention of my contention 1 (fossil distribution); I'll assume my opponent consented this to me. Opponent's Contention 4: Transitional fossils - there are none! My opponent states: "Their are no half evolved limbs in fossils, as it is expected to be. " ((Please note, voters; this grammar mistake is not mine; it's quoted. )) I wish to introduce my opponent to the Tiktaalik; which has these traits[2] that my opponent is failing to find. These aren't *literally* "half" evolved, but the indications of evolution in the fossil records can be demonstrated in this example nonetheless. An interesting note is that this fossil, which refutes my opponent's contention, was the first thing that came up upon my search for "half evolved limbs in fossils". I would kindly ask if my opponent searched for what he is denying? (I hope this doesn't appear to be a sarcastic ad hominem argument, it's not by all means! I am just genuinely curious as to where my opponent got this fallacious claim from, and did he proof check it? ) This refute also refutes the claim that: "But everything in modern times comes fully evolved in events such as the Cambrian explosion. " Opponent's Contention 5: Biased. Again, this is getting off topic slightly, but I'll respond nevertheless. I will break this down. "are you implying that your websites, that attempt to show off evidence for evolution is not biased? " Yes. " It would be a difficult task to find a website that has no biased in either evolution or creationism. " My opponent has provided no source to back this up. "That's just how it is" Again, no source for this paraphrase; it appears to be opinion. As demonstrated in refute 2: not an argument. "There are many websites to back me up and many to back you up, so everything is fine. " Appears to be an ad populum argument that many = fine. Ad pop. arguments are a fallacy; this claim is wrong. However, to avoid further confusion; allow me to clarify. Maybe "bias" was the wrong word to use. This is the topic for another debate, so I'll drop the argument; though I will say that at the least: answers in genesis is (in this claim), factually incorrect. To prove this, please see my source 1, which demonstrates how a claim (about how mutations don't add information) from answers in genesis is, indeed, wrong. For my refutes, I'll extend my contentions. I thank my opponent and the voters once again - I await your response for round five! Sources: [1]. http://www.talkorigins.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...