Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

"there must be supporting evidence, and thus my position in the resolution is affirmed true"Evidence is not needed to idealize evolution, if what you're saying is true then you just agreed that Creation has evidence as well, as it is a idea too. Evolution could have been idealized without any evidence, just like creation, what's needed is Facts, if evolution does not have any facts which show observation of it then it remains an idea.For example people and even Scientist(they are not credible by the way, only facts are) claim that Transitional Fossils would be proof/evidence, however they in reality would not be, as they can easily be explained that it appears to be Transitional because YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created species Similar and at Differenyt levels and it appears to be a Gradual Evolution, when it's really different levels of species having been designed at once.so, for Evolution to be proven the evidence must only support Evolution if it can support something else then evolution is not proven until has proof that it happened. And this is the debate, the debate isn't about the definition of what a theory/idea is, forget that, it's going off topic, The Debate is whether or not Evolution has evidence, it's either presented or not, that's what the debate is, so everything else is irrelevant. "Con states last round that a mindless cause has been disproven. He is sloppily making that claim without providing anything at all to back it up. " Here's the back up, rather the facts that 1, a Cause requires the properties of it's effect, and 2 the fact that nothing cannot cause something. mindless cause is disproven." The law of parsimony, or Occam’s Razor, doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” anything – it is simply a philosophical principle which guides us to assume that the simplest explanation is the most reasonable likelihood until more information is available"That wasn't using likelihood, How can something cause an effect without the properties to do so? it's objectively impossible, we all agree that our mind came from our cause, how can the cause lack the property it gave us?That's like saying the cause of electificity lacks electricity, how can the cause lack what it made/gave? it made/gave it, it cannot lack it when the Cause obviously has the properties of the effect, that's the Whole Notion of Cause and Effect to begin with, it must objectively have the property. Cause must be able to cause it's effect, if it lacks the properties it cannot cause it."There is evidence for evolution, as I have outlined in the previous round, thus meeting my BoP"No you have not, I'll go through it again, from previous round, ""Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: Recent advances in genetics allow us to perform phylogenetic reconstruction, and trace back ancestry by following the progression of mutations. This method has allowed us to confirm, among many other things, that there was at least some interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans."Unless this has been Observed it is not confirmed, merely speculation, not observable, we have no proof that neandethals and humans interbred, similar genetics can easily be explained by that YHWH created species similar and at different levels(He created apes with more hair, and us with less, for example we have PS1 and PS2, did The PS2 evolve from PS1? No the designer just designed it similarly)"which may still serve some function or use but are leftover structures from ancestors who used those structures differently."Not proof for Macro-evolution(One Species evolved/evolving into a New/Different Species) but micro evolution(species evolving into... same species and adapting to enviroment)"but the fossil record is only one line of evidence, and in my mind not even the most compelling"The fossil record can easily be explained that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created species similar and at different levels an evolution is not required therefore not evidence due to, Similar design Theory."there has been extensive experimentation on this topic, including a 25 year study of E. Coli bacteria by Richard Lenski. This will be one of the focal points of my argument since I find it really fascinating."The Lenski Study did not observe One Species evolved into a New/Different Species(Macro-evolution), the species remained e-coli, it adapted to enviroment(Micro-evolution)"Evidence from observed speciation: this is the process by which new species arise, and they are arising all the time. There are, for example, 350,000 described species of beetles."Where has One Species been observed to evolve into a New/Different Species? unless that is observed evolution is not proven, also the 350,000 species of beetles are still, beetles." Evidence from artificial selection: humans have been using evolution to produce domesticated plants and animals for a long time. Breeding big wolves with big wolves over many generations will eventually turn wolves into animals like the Mastiff. Breed little wolves with little wolves and over a few thousand years pass, and you get things like Chihuahuas."Has this been observed with naked eye?"Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration: computers are now powerful enough to simulate complex iterative processes like evolution, and have been used to demonstrate results that are consistent with the kind observed in laboratories."Computers are not proof, they are made by humans.My opponent didn't show any observation of One Species evolving into a New/Different Species, but observations of a species evolving into the same species for adaptation, adapting to enviroment, which is a fact.(For example we have different races, shapes, blood types yet are all the same species, Humans)"^That quote from the previous round"does my opponent have any evidence to support the Bible’s claim if it is taken literally?"Of course, DNA demonstrates an Intentful and Intelligent coding. http://www.ucg.org...Sure evolution was popular before 1953 however new advancements in science have disproven it such as DNA and The Shroud of Turin." If the legs of a whale (which they still have the structure for) was used by its ancestors to walk on land, perhaps as an amphibian, would such an ancestor still correctly be called a whale? No. We are talking about one species eventually transitioning into a distinctly different species."Whales having structure for legs and giving the idea of evolution doesn't demonstrate, evolution, How do you know that this has evolved? because it could've had legs? this isn't observable. "For an analogy, imagine that we are trying to figure out how the Grand Canyon got there. It seems ridiculous that a little river could have eroded such a majestic formation. It would take much longer than any human lives to be able to see a noticeable difference in the rock, but the evidence suggests that the Colorado River is responsible, over the course of many millions of years (around 20 mil), for eroding the canyon that we see today. "Exactly, evidence Suggests not Corfirms, we need it confirmed otherwise we're all wasting our time. Creation is Observed in DNA and general science, why not evolution?"Similarly, the fact that we don’t live long enough to directly observe these phenomena does not mean that we cannot use evidence to figure out what happened with reasonable confidence" Problem is we'll never Figure out what happened unless observed, otherwise we can only speculate, which is ideas "We may not still be alive to see it, but we could reasonably expect it to get there. Would you be inclined to disagree, and say “no, no, the number might be able to get to the 100’s or 1000’s place, or other numbers that I can more easily imagine, but the number will never get to be 700 trillion?”Math however is objectively proven, evolution is not. Science can't accept Evolution if it remains speculation, Speculation is not evidence, Observation is