The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

I. " E-coli bacteria were still E-coli bacteria" I do not assume that because a process took a long time, it can never be proven, rather, I am asking for proof that it did happen at all, and I"m also asking for proof that the long dates given can be proven, and in both cases the available data answers "no" to these questions. I didn"t assume anything. Its Con"s burden to show that what he "assumes" will happen given enough time, will indeed take place. He tries to wriggle out of his burden of proof by saying that "Evolution is not a change of species (Dog to cat)." But this could not be further from the truth. What evolutionist actually imagined took place, is that animals completely changed from one species into a completely different kind of creature altogether. They claim that cells evolved over many generations until they became animals, that invertebrates evolved until their descendents became vertebrates, that vertebrates became tetrapods which eventually became mammals, and so forth. http://www.google.com... Con said that "If a human evolves, it will stay a human," yet, evolutionist say that dinosaurs evolved to become birds, and they cite archaeopteryx as an example as an intermediary link between dinosaurs and birds, sort of a dino-bird. So how is it that humans will remain humans but dinosaurs don"t remain dinosaurs? If dinosaurs become birds, and cells become animals, why wouldn"t humans become something else? Maybe like the aliens we see on TV? Its obvious that Con can"t prove that anything which wasn"t human ever became human, and that"s why he has to argue that humans will remain human. In doing so he abandons the evolutionary hypothesis that before Homo sapiens, Homo Habilis, and all the other Homo"s, there were apes (or apelike creatures) which were not in the category Homo, which were not human at all, which slowly changes through the generations until they became Human. Con says that "the evolutionary process is when the population is distinct and cannot interbreed with "parent" population." Well, if I show two dogs that can"t interbreed to a six-year-old, and ask him what he sees, that child will say "two dogs." The fact that they can no longer interbreed doesn"t show that the dogs are becoming anything other than dogs. It is therefore quite a stretch of the imagination to say that because these cannot interbreed, this proves that a few million years down the line they will no longer be dogs but will be monkeys or cats or anything else. As I have said from the beginning, we may see variation within certain animals, but this is no proof that these animals can, or will, become anything with a radically different morphological structure, such as the wide gap between fish and mammal, or mammals and birds, or monkeys and humans. There are infertile humans today who can"t interbreed with the rest of our species, does that mean they are any less human than the rest of us? II. "So moths tend to have wings with different colors, so what?" Con begins this portion by attacking me personally, saying I have a high degree of ignorance. Just because moths change their color, he asks "Why can"t the moths further adapt and become more complex?" This is a high degree of imagination and wishful thinking. Previously he said that humans remain humans, dogs remain dogs and so forth despite the small changes, which I exactly what I proposed in the beginning, so why shouldn"t I expect that a million years from now the moth will still be a moth? Humans also have different colors, does it prove that in a million years we"ll become like E.T.? Show me a series of generations of moths that slowly change through the generations so that at the end, what you are left with just isn"t a moth anymore, and I"m with you. For this is what evolution teaches. That fish changed through the generations till they became men. III. Con mentions again that 9% of the human population is born without a plantaris, as if this somehow shows that we are slowly loosing our plantaris as part of evolution, but does Con provide any statistics to show that less than 9% of humans were born without the plantaris in the past? How does he know that this 9% isn"t simply a constant throughout human history? He"s acting as though at some point, all humans were born with the plantaris, and as we evolved, we lost the need for it and thus more and more of us are born without it. In that case, he needs to show figures where the number of persons born without the plantaris increases as time goes by. What proof has Con given to show that in the past we used to have more use for the plantaris than we do now? None whatsoever. Its all just assumed by evolutionists. All humans don"t have blone hair, but that isn"t proof that we are evolving into anything other than human. Why then, should some human"s lacking a plantaris be proof of evolution? Its simply a case of limited variation within the kind. Again, Con assumes the appendix had a function in us that it no longer has. Where is his evidence for this? If his only evidence is that it has that function in gorillas or chimps, how does that show it once had a different function in us humans? His only option is to assume we once were the chimps, or an apelike ancestor, but he needs to first prove this, not assert it. He hasn"t done so, so his burden of proof isn"t met. Con says "Science isn't a vote structure!" yet appeals to what a majority of scientists say as if the numbers determine truth. My opponent also fails to realize that the small changes are not necessarily making the animals more complex, for they can loose a few features and thus by his logic would be less complex. But more importantly, all the experimental evidence shows that these small changes rotate around a core morphological structure that doesn"t ever change, so that despite small variations, moths remain moths, dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish, etc. They are not becoming anything radically different as Con imagines. He even claims there was no pressure from the environment to cause E-coli to become radically different, so can he show me one single experiment where such "pressures" were applied and the result was a radically different organism? No. It doesn"t exist. Finally, notice Con needs millions of years to get evolution to happen. But he never even attempted to address the argument I made in round 1 that he cannot prove any of these dates are correct. I challenged him to explain the carbon dating process, particularly how he can know the half-life of C-14, and he was hopelessly silent. Since he doesn't have those millions of years, he can't assume that the whole fish-to-man evolution ever happened! I'm still waiting on his argument for this. Maybe we will hear it in the next round.