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

INTROThank you for you rebuttals, Pro.Pro says that all theories must be falsifiable. I agree. I would like to ask Pro to give me one example of what would falsify the Theory of Evolution. ANALOGIESPro and I are arguing from different paradigms, so I think that some analogies should be made to help show what we are saying, else we may be arguing past each other.Analogy 1: 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."I think we can see from this analogy that, if someone does not have a justifiable argument for his claim for causation, then the correlation/causation argument is a sound way to refute it, not just cast doubt on the theory.Now, I have received a couple of comments in the comments section, plus my opponent has also brought this point to light, over the argument on whether there exists methods that produce new information in organisms that would infer evidence for Evolution. I must apologize for my initial vague use of the term "new information" and I will clarify by what I mean:Analogy 2: Information is not matter or energy. If I show the letters "niforoitman" this should mean nothing to the reader. However, if I rearrange the letters to say "information" the reader will be able to use these symbols to recocgnize meaning. Information uses matter to convey a message. DNA contains information; it does not create it nor does it add to it. Natural selection picks from existing information, and mutations can change the genetic sequence. But neither mutations nor natural selections create the genetic code, rather, they need a genetic code first before they can select from and rearrange that information. Analogy 3: Imagine a video game, let's say the original Super Mario Bros. Now, within that computer code, we can tweak information to add a few functions into the game, say alter the physics and allow Mario to jump higher, or even copy one of the levels in the game and tweak it to make a new level. 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 same is true between organisms and their genetic sequences.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. We see fully formed creatures within the fossil record. We see living fossils (1), or animals that have changed very little or not at all for millions of years. If the observational evidence we have shows that animals do not change their genetic sequence into becoming another animal, then why should we assume that animals in the past that we cannot observe have morphed into other animals? This is not consistent thinking, and goes against the evidence. REBUTTALPro: "The Evolutionary Mechanism has been observed repeatedly.."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. And without any proof of the starting point of evolution, one has no valid reason to accept the rest of evolution.CONCLUSIONIf 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.My opponent can only show that organisms now have mutations that alter the genetic code. However, the genetic sequence is readable information. 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. My opponent has no causal proof for his claim.(1) http://www.mnn.com...