Evolution is a scientific theory not a fallacy

In summary, not in this round, nor in the previous did Con actually attempt to refute the resolution as stated, instead ignored the definitions and argued against contentions created simply for the purpose of denying them. Note the definition of evolution has never been directly contended to be a fallacy, nor has any of the evidence for it been refuted. In closing, some remarks will be made about comments on the references provided. "These bacterium grew accustomed to citrus, not changing species. It is still the same bacterium, it can just stand something it couldn't before." Using lay terms in a scientific discussion is not going to be productive, what is the meaning of "accustomed" and what does it say exactly about the inherited traits of the population, this is the topic at hand. If the population passes on this being "accustomed" in successive generations (which it did) then by the above definition it is an example of evolution. "Creationists say the bacterium cannot turn into horses or fish. That is a huge difference." Indeed, and UCD deals with this assertion as noted in the above. This point stands uncontested. "I'm sorry, but I thought that science was supposed to be about observed facts, not inferrences. " An inference is the act of drawing a reasoned conclusion from observed facts. "Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. (sterile, cannot have offspring. This is where we came from?)" What is the point of quote mining when it can be made clear it is a quote mine, the full text : "This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage." "(if it is artificial, how did evolution naturally do it?)" Polyploidy, or the duplication of chromosomes is caused by many factors, in humans for example it can happen simply due to multiple sperm fertilizing the egg. They were simply trying to induce a rare event specifically to test a hypothesis. "... it never resulted in a change of species." Again, speciation was clearly observed and documented to fit the specific definitions noted, and the actual names of the new species were given in each instance. "This is not anything to show evolution where a fruit fly changes into a whale or even into a bee." Is it really being argued to demonstrate speciation, an experiment has to show a fruit fly population evolve into a whale population, that there is no taxonomic rank between those two other than species? "Kinds are able to produce offspring together. Dogs and wolves can produce offspring. Dogs and fish cannot." Are people the same kind as a chimp? "When Nick Patterson of MIT and his colleagues at the Broad Institute compared the genes of humans and chimps, they found that one of the chromosomes -- the female sex chromosome X -- was 1.2 million years younger than the others. It appeared the two species shared a common ancestor who gave them both their X chromosomes, and did so more recently than the ancestors who gave them all the other chromosomes." [1] The interesting there here is that there are two cladistic nodes, which points to at a point where humans and chimps first separated those populations diverged (human line and chimp line) but the population was able to produce a secondary node over a million years later, i.e., early human and chimps were interbreeding. Note of course not only does evolution cause divergence above the species level, this can be traced backwards and end up with a universal common ancestor, a prediction which has been tested and is peer reviewed as noted in the above. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...