Since I'm debating an evolutionary biologist at r/debateEvolution, I think it would be appropriate to describe the playbook that they debate from. Most of evolutionary theory, starting with Darwin isn't built on science but logical fallacies.

Here is an excellent list of fallacies written by a brilliant atheist: https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Ironically it describes so much of the arguments that evolutionary theory is built on. The trick in debate is cutting through the fallacy and making a persuasive argument that a fallacy was actually put forward.

I use the phrase "phylogenetic obfuscation" sometimes. From wiki here is obfuscation:

Obfuscation is the willful obscuring of the intended meaning of communication, usually by making the message confusing, ambiguous, or difficult to understand. The obfuscation might be unintentional or intentional (although intent usually is connoted), and is accomplished with circumlocution (talking around the subject), the use of jargon (technical language of a profession), and the use of an argot (ingroup language) of little communicative value to outsiders.[1]

Moreover, in expository writing, unintentional obfuscation usually is a writer's trait in draft documents, when just beginning the composition; such obfuscation can be illuminated with critical thinking and revision, either by the writer or by an editor. Etymologically, the word obfuscation derives from the Latin obfuscatio, from obfuscāre (to darken). Synonyms for the obscuring of meaning include: beclouding and abstrusity.

"Phylogenetic" refers to the claim if two things are similar, they necessarily share a common ancestor, and that if they share a common ancestor, the evolution from a common ancestor isn't improbable and does not require miracles.

Humans share many genes with a banana. Rabbits share many genes with a potato. Does that mean it is highly probable a potato can evolve into a rabbit? No, even an evolutionary biologist will say so. So how is it then they will argue that potatoes and rabbits have the same grandma way way back? "because they share so many of the same genes" the answer goes, but it has many of the same logical fallacies of evolving a rabbit from a potato, namely the stuff that isn't similar. They forget to mention the problem of the genes they don't share, the so called "orphans" and "taxonomically restricted genes" plus other things called autapomorphies, etc.

It's cherry picked data. Another logical fallacy.

Here is an example of phylogenetic obfuscation. Most creatures share the same genetic codon table (aka the DNA code). They use that to claim it's easy for creatures to evolve from a common ancestor and that life arose by itself without God's help. In logical terms these are non-sequiturs.

A non-sequitur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false (because there is a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion), but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid (and so, technically, the terms 'invalid argument' and 'non sequitur' are equivalent), the word 'non sequitur' is typically used to refer to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, 'non sequitur' is used to refer to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.[further explanation needed]

When the non-sequitur is combined with other logical fallacies it can be a powerful (albeit deceitful) debate tool.

A good example is the Chewbacca Defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

A Chewbacca defense is the name in the United States given to a legal strategy in which the aim of the argument seems to be to deliberately confuse the jury rather than to factually refute the case of the other side. This term was used in an episode of the animated series South Park, "Chef Aid", which premiered on October 7, 1998. This episode satirized attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O. J. Simpson in his murder trial. The term has since been commonly used in describing legal cases, especially criminal ones. The concept of disguising a flaw in one's argument by presenting large amounts of irrelevant information has previously been described as the modern-day equivalent of a red herring or the fallacy ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).[1]

Evolutionary theory is built mostly of logical fallacies. I expect if DarwinZDF42 debates me he'll be quoting from evolutionary literature which has lots of these. His associates are already doing some literature bluffing.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2228

Literature bluffing is the indiscriminate citation of scientific papers and articles whose titles or abstracts may seem germane to the problem at hand, but which on careful reading prove not to settle the issue, or even not to have any relevance to it. Like a squid spewing out ink to confuse a pursuer, or a fighter jet dispensing chaff to deflect incoming missiles, a literature bluffer floods the discussion with citations to distract attention from the real issues.

Bibliographic search engines such as PubMed make it easy for literature bluffers to compile long lists of citations. The literature bluffer, however, rarely explains the arguments or evidence contained in the publications on the list. That would defeat the bluffer's purpose, which is not really to address the merits of the case, but rather to overwhelm the reader with the apparent weight of scientific authority. The reader is then left with the work of actually studying the publications and assessing their relevance.

People pre-disposed to reject reasonable criticisms of evolutionary theory eat up literature bluffs like crazy. They rarely stick around to actually see evolutionary arguments actually taken apart.