Evolution is backed by scientific evidence

On the point that "mutation" is vague: perhaps I should clarify.I am referring to any natural, inheritable genetic changes which occur, especially when replicating DNA/RNA.Following from this minor point, you state that after a beneficial mutation, it is likely that the next mutation will harm the organism. It is true that there are beneficial and harmful mutations. However, I dispute the claim that beneficial mutations will be reversed. It is muchNext, you point out that nature is not predisposed to life. Sure. Evolution is a chain reaction, powered by the sun. However, it should be noted that stars generally last hundreds of billions of years, and a planet in the right conditions, sustained by a star, can sustain (and depending on who you ask, perhaps create) life.Now onto your rebuttal.1. FossilsYou claim that Homo habilis and related fossils are speculated to be transitional, but may or may not actually be transitional. I don't dispute this claim; however, that there is a progression requires an explanation.In order to explain the existence of Homo habilis, you state that God may have created life several times throughout history. This doesn't seem to explain why such a God would create the appearance of a progression. You would expect these various lifeforms to be much different from us, especially considering that God is supposedly a perfect being and wouldn't make any mistakes in creation.2. Microevolutionary experimentsLike other apologists, Con points out the difference between the small-scale change seen today and the large-scale change supposedly reflected in the fossil record. Inductive reasoning can be used here, but I understand that v3nesl has a different idea, so I will let him explain that.You also state that Darwin was not trying to explain genetically isolated groups. True; he was trying to explain the variety of lifeforms. Again I would like to invoke inductive reasoning here.One of the best examples of microevolution is bacteria becoming antibiotic-resistant(including one strand which is entirely immune to antibiotics) and viruses evading the antibodies in vaccines (the reason for annual flu shots) - a clear example of a beneficial mutation which is not reversed by a future mutation, but in fact compounded by that mutation.3. ImperfectionVestigial organs are organs for which there is no explanation but inheritance. A human could easily be created without a tailbone (if some muscles were reorganized) or wisdom teeth (if diets were changed).The appendix and second kidney may not be entirely purposeless, but humans can live without them.\Further examples of bad design exist - here's one scientist reviewing all of the ways humans could be built to live longer. http://docencia.med.uchile.cl...Now back to your main arguments - you stated that DNA disproves evolution, but how so? Scholars do not generally support the belief that information can only come from a mind - after all, deterministic processes can also create information.DNA is just as much of information as molecular structure is. However, it is universally agreed that molecules can be created without divine intervention.DNA, in fact, shows the effects of evolution (duplicated genes, some genes which increase reproduction) so it cannot be said to disprove it.Thank you for debating civilly.