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

I would just like to point out that this debate seems to be drifting from the original purpose of the resolution to a standard evolution debate.THE PART OF THE DEBATE ACTUALLY RELATING TO THE RESOLUTION "My point with the ladder analogy was that, no matter how much correlation there is between two subjects, it still does not prove causation. Causation is another issue, one that must be explained how it is caused. Only relying on correlation will never prove causation."My opponent seems to have completely ignored my analysis of his analogy. This leads me to believe that he doesn't understand it. My opponent may correct me if I'm wrong, but either way, I'm going to go ahead and re-phrase my rebuttal to the correlation/causation argument:-- The fossil record completely supports Evolution through the display of gradual change in species over time (i.e. correlation). From the average person's perspective, this is definite proof that Evolution must be responsible for the development of all life on Earth.-- However, according to the correlation/causation argument, there is no reason to believe that such a fossil record must be a product of evolution (i.e. no reason to believe that Evolution is responsible for the development of all life on Earth), unless evidence of causation is shown (i.e. evidence that Evolution definitely caused the development of all life on Earth).-- But, even if no causal evidence exists, there is still a CHANCE that Evolution IS responsible for the fossil record, although it is not a sure chance.-- Thus, the correlation/causation only casts DOUBT upon the theory, although, admittedly, at that point, it would be quite a substantial amount of doubt.-- However, we have more than simple correlation to show. We have OBSERVED Evolution happen in many different species (1)-- Since all organisms have the same genetic code (DNA), we know that it is POSSIBLE for Evolution to have been the cause of development of all life on Earth (i.e. proof of POSSIBLE causation)-- That, in conjunction with the fact that the fossil record supports Evolution as the cause of development of all life on Earth, and that there are zero alternative scientific theories, it becomes extremely likely that Evolution is the c. o. d. o. a. l. o. e.-- Of course, there is still a tiny margin of error, since there is no ABSOLUTE proof of causation. So all the correlation/causation argument does is point to the tiny margin of error and say, "Look! it MIGHT be wrong!". But any qualified scientist already knows that, like any other scientific theory, the theory Evolution has some room for error.-- In conclusion, the correlation/causation argument does NOT disprove the theory of evolution.I ask that my opponent concentrate the majority of his effort on this portion of the debate next round.THE REST OF THE DEBATEThat being said, I will still proceed to answer all of my opponents other contentions because I cannot resist the temptation to dismantle anti-evolution arguments, no matter what the time and place :)"When people doubt the General Theory of Evolution, a common claim is that those people either do not know enough of the evidence for evolution... Now, this is certainly not true. A person can be well aware of the arguments for evolution... certain theists do not deny evolutionary theory because of religion- they do so because of the scientific reasons."It was nice of my opponent to not make rude assumptions about my beliefs. However, I will be honest: I have never heard a valid scientific argument against evolution. The correlation/causation argument was the first one to ever stump me, and it turns out that even that doesn't disprove evolution in the end. "I must say, I think there are some issues with this being a way to falsify evolution. First, there is no proof of sustained progression in the first place"There actually HAS been proof of sustained progression (2), so the sustained regression example WOULD still work to falsify the theory of Evolution.Also, since Con has decided to use the appeal to authority fallacy, I shall respond with some of my own! (3)(4)(5)"Darwin had no scientific degrees. He did not come up with his theory based on evidence- He came up with a theory that he realized at the time went against the evidence of his day, but he was certain that in time his theory would be proved. "When Darwin first came up with this theory it really was nothing much more than a very logical hypothesis. However, this is common knowledge. I don't see how this serves to prove my opponent's point at all. Since Darwin's time, we have gotten so much more evidence, and we have even witnessed it happening, which is why we can now consider it a scientific theory. "...the origins of the universe is the one instance where a God is needed."Here, my opponent has made the mistake of grouping cosmology into the theory of evolution. I personally believe in God and that no scientific theory provides an ample explanation of the beginning of the Universe on its own, but that has nothing to do with my belief/disbelief in evolution. I believe in theistic evolution."Also, if we look at evolutionary thought, we see it keeps changing."Yes, that is the nature of science... it keeps improving upon itself as new evidence is found, in a quest to understand the workings of the universe. This does not invalidate science. It just shows that scientific theories are always up to date on the latest evidence. All evidence found thus far has been in favor of Evolution. "The NES Mario Bros cannot contain any code that allows for the controller to have motion, as the NES system has no motion controller, but the Wii does. This is akin to an animal without wings vs an animal with wings- no genetic code for wings can be written in an organism without wings."My opponent is missing the point of why this analogy doesn't work at all. Video games are written in computer codes. The two games are written two totally different languages of code. Thus is is obvious that one game's code cannot be altered into the other game's code. However, when it comes to organisms, they all have the same genetic code: DNA. And thus a species CAN gradually evolve to become one that is totally different, yet still uses the same genetic code."First, the Miller-Urey experiment did not simulate the real conditions of life on planet earth"I am aware of the limitations of their experiment. However, the point IS, that inorganic elements CAN bond into organic compounds. "I am sorry for my opponent, but the Miller-Urey experiment was far, far away from proving abiogenesis."I did not claim that. I simply cited the Miller-Urey experiment as a starting point. I then recommended to my opponent that he go read up on the rest of the story as to how those organic compounds led to the first life."With living fossils, they have undergone no change for millions of years."My opponent seems to have the impression that living fossils do not change at all. However, this is false, as they do still change slightly and subtly (6).The reason living fossils don't have to change AS MUCH as other organisms is because they're phenotypes are so adaptable that very minimal change is needed to adapt to changes in the environment."My opponent still has no absolute causal proof of Evolution."Correct. And his opponent probably WON'T have any within his lifetime either, but fortunately, it is not needed because we have evidence of LIKELY causation, and doubt does NOT disprove.I look forward to the final round of our debate!SOURCES(1) http://listverse.com...(2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(3) http://www.richarddawkins.net...(4) http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...(5) http://www.amazon.com...(6) http://www.lucasbrouwers.nl...