DNA, IC, natural selection and debating a Creationist

[Anymouse]

1) Yes there is. There might be no evidence that a creationist would accept, however. (Don't confuse me with the facts lalalalalala)
2) Why not? Everything from misdivided chromosomes to radiation can alter DNA. (And thorium, a radioactive element, is present in all earth. It can be found everywhere. Ever hear the "background radiation" on a Geiger counter? Tick, tick, tick, DNA being altered.)
3) Yes there is. See 1) above.

1) But what is that evidence? I'm not too fussed whether they accept it or not. I'd just like to be able to counter it.
2) I understand mutations etc change DNA, which I guess you could say was then 'new'. But I think this joker is saying new in the context of totally new and different DNA added. As if a strand or piece of DNA has just been added in a puff of magic.
3) I just need to know what the evidence is for the 'climb' as they put it. Would all present day organisms be at the tips of the trees branches? Therefore there won't be any descendants of Darwin's finches yet, or have I got this all backwards?

Just to add this person isn't mentioning religion or creation. They're just trying to say that evolution is false and untrue because of the reasons I have stated.

The easiest thing is to ignore/ridicule them, but I rarely do things the easy way

I am assuming you stated #1. And they refuse to accept it, or refute your assertion with contrary evidence. Ergo, it is not a debate.

Evolution proceeds through natural selection. If he refuses to accept the definitions of the terms, it is also not a debate.

His assertion of DNA simply "appearing" is a claim which runs counter to everything we know of biology, chemistry, geology, palentology, &c. Therefore he is making the extraordinary claim. The onus of its proof is on him, not on you to disprove it (other than the usual rules of logic and rhetoric).

Perhaps that is where scientific debate goes wrong. Anyone with a crackpot idea claims their pet theory is on an equal level with established scientific knowledge, without showing their proof is so. Demand their evidence. Then, after they give it to you, (if there is any), if you are unsure about what they present, say so, that you may check it out. There is no shame in saying "Sounds interesting, but let me research that."

Even if he does not support IC or religion in general, the rules of debate still apply.