Macroevolution is a Scientifically Correct Explanation for the Diversity of Life on Earth.

My opponent's definition of Macroevolution is fine. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Transitional Fossils Transitional fossils are fossils that illustrate evolutionary change in a usually more illustrative form since technically every new species have a degree of evolutionary change. What we mean by "transitional fossils" is just really a human construct; a vivid image of evolutionary shift. With the advent of cladistics in paleontology, it has been much more accurate to diagram the ever growing "evolutionary tree" that shows evolutionary change and transition. "Transitional" can be used for those forms that do not have a significant number of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words, a transitional organism is morphologically close to the actual common ancestor it shares with its more derived relative. [1] First of all, we do have a plethora of such transitional fossils, such as the famous Archeopteryx. Adhering to the stated definition of transitional fossils, it retianed more qualities of theropod dinosaurs than it did of birds.. [2] Ambulocetus is known as the "walking whale", it had attributes of a crocodile and showed the transition of a land-mammal to a whale. [3] In fact, just a thorough examination of the evolution of the horse, the most updated and completed evolutionary lineage of any other animal, shows many clear examples of transitional fossils. [4] A common annoying quip from creationists is the remark "What is the use of half a wing?". True, what IS the use of it? It would probably be nothing, and it fact most likely be a detriment. Why we don't find such animals though, is because they will most likely be SELECTED AGAINST by evolution. An animal that cannot reproduce successfully will eventually have it's genes in it's respective gene pool die out. However, as I have shown with the several examples of transitional forms, sometimes we do have an instance of a weird "hybrid" animal. I mean come on, a walking fish? [5] Can't get cooler than that. 2. Comparative Anatomy My opponent makes no argument against the scientific validity of comparative anatomy, phylogenetics, cladistics, or any other area dealing with evolutionary relatedness. He however, resorts to quite a horrible argument. First, no a scientific explanation or theory does not have to disprove all other explanations. What we decide to be the best theory is the one with the most evidence, and the one better at application. For example, Newtonian physics have been replaced with Relativity when concerning celestial bodies, since Relativity is so much more accurate at prediction than Newtonian physics. Does this mean Newtonian physics have been disproven? No. My resolution and opening argument never stated Macroevolution is the ONLY viable scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I merely stated that it is scientifically CORRECT. Finally, your explanation that simply "God did it" is not only a crummy explanation, but not scientific. Science is in principle methodologically naturalistic. It deals with only natural phenomena that is observable, testable, repeatable, and predictable. God, being exempt from observation and being supernatural has no place in science. ~Conclusion~ I have shown quite thoroughly the evidence for transitional fossils. I gave many examples, and shown the ridiculous argument creationists use for what it is: complete moot. My opponent's argument against comparative anatomy shows no knowledge of the principles of science, and of what is "science". ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...