Evolution could not have created man

What is this, an open book debate? That's understandable, as the arguments against evolution require such convoluted nonsense that it must be hard to keep it all straight. I'll wing it, just as I would if I had to prove that water makes clouds, so there will be no citations. As Darwin developed the theory of evolution, I'm guessing we're using his definition and understanding of it, not Jerry Falwell's. The engine of evolution does not rely solely on mutations. There are roughly(relying on memory here) 50 or so equally important drivers of evolution that DO account for variation of species, such as heredity, fecundity, demography, environmental change, et al. Further, each one of these engines speeding evolution on have themselves many factors that mutate the mutations (such as retroviruses) making mutation an engine that runs on an exponential infinity of possibilities, not on some simple probability as posited by my worthy opponent. Forgive me as I'm not sure what they teach in Sunday school, whether animals are made up of a couple dozen magic "Jesus beans" or what, but we're actually made up of billions of tiny cells that are constantly dividing. But before those cells can divide, they've gotta make a copy of their DNA.And DNA replication is an amazing biological phenomena, with some DNA dividing non stop, over and over and over again, increasing the number of mutations possible for just one particular animal infinite. The population of an entire species would have an unfathomable amount of Jesus bead...err...cell mutations. So, while the God squad sets up the straw man fallacy that evolution depends on ONE force, there are actually closer to 50, which themselves can produce at least three different genetic variances during evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, and, that old standby, random genetic drift. While it's evident that my opponent is serious about this debate (I think), it's pretty obvious from his citation that he didn't care to really explore the argument too deeply, citing "Davis 1." He is all hopped up on his confirmation bias, found it on page one, and didn't bother to go any further. For the sake of this debate, I wish he would've. When it comes to the apparent lack of transitional fossils, he is, however, crazy right. No, wait. That should've read just plain "crazy." My apologies to you and your creator. There are, in fact, way too many "transitional" fossils to even begin to list them here. Fossil collection is still in its infancy, yet we've found a lot. Sadly, the creationist goes to the museum and only looks at the dinosaurs, the "page one" of the fossil record. The early human evolutionary tree is actually more of a bush, as evolution would predict. Now my opponent starts to get a little screwy. "If God does not exist, there is no moral standard." That would mean that God is moral. If there is no God, then civilization risks being thrown into a state of ...gasp... survival of the fittest. Right:evolution. Then things get weird and bad. Something about "jews" being a hazard to mankind and having to "subdue" them. Suddenly, I'm debating the Nazi Final Solution with Goebbels himself. Nein danke. Lastly, the problem of where did all this stuff come from? That is a fallacy of language. We are accustomed to ever noun having a verb. We say "It's raining." What is "It's?" There is a state of rain. We get uncomfortable and want to know where did all this stuff come from? It didn't have to come from anywhere. It simply is. It always ways and always will be. I will not let our amazing human race be reduced to artifacts of a creator. However, it's much easier to explain where the stuff came from then where an imaginary guy who made all the stuff came from. And where did the guy who made that guy come from? Nonsense. Have some faith.