Evolution is an incorrect theory

My opponent starts by stating that "you have stated that micro evolution and macro evolution is different". Ok - kind of. I don't think that they are entirely the same; I think that they work on the same principle. My opponent also states that: "Natural Selection- By definition, natural selection are small changes and adaptations that happens to a species so it can continue to live. " I agree with "changes and adaptations" and "continue to live", but I disagree with the word "small". I haven't found a definition that specifies small, but have found several definitions that don't. [1][2][3][4] My opponent states that natural selection doesn't add information - without defining information. Despite this, I'd agree with him. My opponent then states that that was his opinion on my argument (and so not an argument in itself) before making his actual argument. My opponent say that good mutations are good for bad reasons. I dispute this idea, but a refute is not needed because good and bad are just opinions. I need not refute anything, except the last sentence. "No mutation can even claim to add information. " That is a lie. [5] There have been several instances of this, for example: "increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)" Now that I have refuted all of your arguments, allow me to add two of my own. Contention 1: The distribution of fossils supports the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution predicts that as we move up the higher levels of strata, we should see more complex life forms fossilized, because animals will have evolved more over longer periods of time. However, the Argument for Creationism (should) predict that fossil distribution is random as bunnies were made with cyanobacteria which were made with mammoths which were made with humans etc. .. OK, fair enough. But which does the evidence support? The Theory of Evolution. The fossil record show the distribution as predicted by the theory of evolution. You never find mammoths with humans! I conclude that this fact (of the distribution) supports evolution. Contention 2: Transitional forms support evolution. The Theory of Evolution predicts that because of random mutation and natural selection, we will see animals in transition from one form to another. We should see these in fossils. However, the argument for Creationism states that we shouldn't see any at all, because all animals were made how they are now. What do we see? Transitional forms, supporting evolution. "From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians. " As an example. I thank my opponent and await his next argument(s). Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://www.answers.com... [3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]. http://www.biology-online.org... [5]. http://www.talkorigins.org...