Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

"I have provided sources to back up my definition whereas my opponent has absolutely no sources for his arbitrary definition whatsoever. " >"The amoeba is a very important life form as it is the basis on which many more lives form, like tissues and organs. Without amoeba, evolution of other organisms would not be possible" http://www.buzzle.com... >"The full family tree of the species known as social amoebas has been plotted for the first time – a breakthrough which will provide important clues to the evolution of life on earth." http://www.york.ac.uk... >"The full family tree of the species known as social amoebas has been plotted for the first time – a breakthrough which will provide important clues to the evolution of life on earth. " http://www.astrobiology.com... >Enough for now? "Chihuahuas did not evolve from the wolves directly, but are a demonstration as to how gradual changes can lead to rather large changes. Thus, my opponent's attempt at reducing to absurdity has backfired and he has actually helped my argument. Thank you." >The word 'evolved' does not mean 'changed' it means PROGRESSION. So my question stands: Has a wolf progressed by changing into a chihuahua? Has it improved? "Endosymbiont hypothesis" >We are not discussing hypothesis, we are (supposed to be) talking about EVIDENCE. *POINTS 3,4 & 5 all deal with my opponents erroneous belief in 'species' and so cannot be dealt with. " Family breeding" http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... "The strict definition of species is NO. But there are noted exceptions. It depends how far separated in evolution the species are. It is believed that all dogs descended from a wolf-like species and dogs and wolves have been known to interbreed." >So different 'species' can interbreed or they can't? I stand by my link. "Of course there is genetic variation, a 'switching on and off' process but unless you begin with the original archetype then how would you know the original code sequence?" >I simply mean that you assume a less complex ancestor and so perceive an increase in complexity while I assume a more complex ancestor and so perceive a loss in information. Unlike my opponent, I do not link to a website in the vain hope of convincing others that I actually understand the exact processes. "And now, as promised, I shall unite "micro" and "macro" evolution. My opponent has conceded that I have offered many examples of "microevolution" and not of "macroevolution" and claims that I have not met the burden because he personally defines evolution as "macroevolution"." >NO, you have provided many examples of breeding masquerading as 'evolution'. I define Evolution as the theory that all life sprang from a single cell amoeba. The macro/micro classifications are totally misleading terms which I've used only to delineate how the slight of hand works. My opponent is trying to put words in my mouth here. "Regardless, microevolution directly implies macroevolution. My opponent cannot give a reason why small changes cannot build up to big changes. If I can walk to my front door, why can't I walk down the street? My opponent has no answer." >And here we have the pinnacle of 'evolutionary' 'theory': That a reason cannot be found why it is NOT so! >'Big changes' would be referring to Families perhaps? Posting links to yet more examples of breeding simply WILL NOT DO. Show the actual evidence, with the link as back up please. >On the one hand my opponent would have us believe that evolution is nothing other than 'change in species' (misleadingly called micro evolution) but on the OTHER hand wants to sneak in 'macro evolution'. >WHICH is it?