Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

My opponent first begins by stating that my framing of the term "Evolution" is deliberately adjusted in my favor, he accuses me of making a definition that is too vague and wants instead to submit his own definition, which is patently wrong and unscientific. To avoid dispute, I shall compromise and simply use the definitions of credible sources. Evolution (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. Evolution (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. As you can see, the core definition of Evolution shows absolutely nothing about it being the exact way through which speciation takes place, even though it is stated that the progressive changes accumulated through generations and generations can indeed lead to speciation. My opponent would have us believe that if one branch of a branch of a branch of the tree of evolution leads to a single bad leaf, it means the whole tree is diseased from the roots. Please do not be mislead. The definition of Evolution and the core of evolutionary theory is centered only on the observed changes that my opponent has referred to as microevolution. Evolution in no way claims that it is the perfect and the only explanation for how species came to be, nor is Evolution limited entirely to what my opponent calls "macroevolution". Evolution is what the definitions show it to be, and my opponent may try to manipulate these definitions until he turns blue in the face, but it will not change the fact that Evolution is evolution: it only implies that my opponent has been mislead about the true definition of Evolutionary theory. Now, before I get into my opponent's response, let us deal with the resolution: Is there a shred of evidence for Evolution? Yes. Evolution is defined as the passing of changed genetic material from one generation to the next. Let us also go over what we mean by Evolutionary Theory. "Theory" is a word that is misunderstood by many people. A scientific theory is something that attempts to explain an observed scientific phenomenon in the best way possible, that is supported by evidence. Evolution by way of natural selection falls under this category and I will have evidence following: The most obvious piece of evidence for Evolutionary Theory is the fact that all living things come from other living things, and that every living thing is linked to every other living thing via DNA and other processes that are essential for life to occur. The fact that every living thing shares the same mechanisms for life combined with the fact that living things change and come from other living things leads us with only one explanation: Evolution of a common ancestor. My opponent may argue that DNA is merely the signature of a single creator, but he cannot explain why life is dynamic and constantly changing. In addition, he cannot explain the presence of Mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells, supported by Endosymbiotic Theory . http://en.wikipedia.org... Stating that these "organelles" which are the energy source of cells and which also have their own DNA actually originated from a symbiotic relationship between two primitive cells. Why then would an intelligent creator not just create an organelle? To suggest that is simply absurd. We have also successfully altered the DNA of microbes and allowed them to reproduce, changing their DNA and the DNA of their progeny in the laboratories. In fact, this is how Insulin is made; genetic reprogramming of yeast. . http://www.dnai.org... This is, of course, an artificial example. There are also countless examples of natural selection occurring in response to environmental effects. One of which is the famous peppered moth example. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The peppered moths of the Industrial revolution show a good case for what my opponent calls "microevolution" and thus, is evidence for Evolutionary theory (which, as I repeat, is merely the indication of genetic change passed from one generation to the next). Natural selection of the moths in the form of birds being able to see through their camouflage shows that the mechanism of natural selection can lead to genetic disproportion in the gene pool. While not being evidence for all branches and concepts that come from Evolutionary Theory, it is still evidence for it. Speciation is also observed in animals that have different adaptations for different uses, such as Darwin's finches in the Galapagos. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The finches have a wide variety of different shaped beaks specialized for their particular niche. Scientists have isolated the cause of these developmental differences to one particular chemical and its timing and amount in the body. This not only shows how a species adapts to the environment as evidence for the mechanism for evolution, but also that evolution is quite possible since a single chemical's duration during development could have a profound impact phenotypically. This serves as evidence for the plausibility of evolution. The fossil record also serves as a good source of evidence for speciation. Archaeologists who unearth fossils from different geological strata can see the differences between fossilized species and how a particular creature's traits change over long periods of time, after many generations of accumulated change. In addition, many so-called "transitional" fossils have been found to link two previously "unrelated" species, providing evidence that they developed from the same ancestor. . http://anthro.palomar.edu... . http://www.gate.net... And this source which provides a list of 15 examples of evolution via the fossil record: . http://www.nature.com... Now, I shall address my opponent's lone argument. Before that, I must note that this debate is about whether or not there is evidence for Evolutionary Theory, not about whether or not Evolutionary Theory is correct. Do not allow my opponent to mislead you by giving an argument as to why Evolutionary Theory is false. I have provided evidence and thus, my response to this argument is just a formality. A family or a kind as a form of categorization is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific way to categorize families or kinds, so I will throw out his argument about families and kinds until he can prove that families and kinds are categorized objectively. A species can be defined more easily based on reproductive ability and this is how speciation occurs: . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent's suggestion that Information cannot be added is false. Here are observed examples and a proposed mechanism: 1. Video shown above-www. youtube. com/watch? v=I14KTshLUkg . http://www.youtube.com... 2. . http://www.talkorigins.org... My opponent's suggestion that there has been no observed beneficial mutation is false. The following source lists many: . http://www.gate.net... My response has addressed every word of my opponent's counterpoint even though it was unnecessary because this debate is about whether or not evidence for Evolutionary Theory EXISTS, not whether or not it is true. And I have listed my pieces of evidence, which work for my first definition of evolution, my opponent's wrong definition, and for the two definitions I provided (just to make sure that my opponent does not cry foul). I look forward to my opponent's