Macro Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

One of the major issues my opponent brings up is that of ring species. Although this is one of the better arguments I have heard it falls apart but I will spend a majority of my time addressing it. Ring species shows a breakdown, which is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics which is contradictory to evolution. It is also similar in some respects to hybrids such as mules though mules are sterile and so cannot be considered a new species and are therefore the barrier to a new species being formed. [1] [2] Also, the fact that they still are all warblers or all salamanders in the other case shows that even though they have managed to change to an extent that they cannot interbreed, it does not show that they have changed to be something outside their order and speciation from one order to another has never been observed, since that is the case it is a logical leap to assume such. At each point along the change they can interbred even if the end points cannot interbred the fact that the intermediates can breed shows a commonality. At what point does the crossover to a new species occur? If they are two distinct species shouldn’t there be a point at which we can determine one species ends and the other begins? There seems to be a problem with the taxonomy. There is an alternate taxonomy model called baraminology. In many cases in fact the Biblical kind would not be species but would likely be closer to Family in many cases of which ring species does not overcome. [3] [4] For another illustration I could draw an example in blood type in humans, while this example is far from perfect it might help to explain it. Humans have different blood types that are only compatible with certain other blood types. These are genetic and are passed on by the parents. However, no matter the blood type a human could never be compatible with any animal. The point I am trying to make here is that there is a barrier to mutation if we think of blood type as a mutation. Although I admit that this analogy does not capture the idea perfectly. For the source videos 4 and 5 some of the examples listed on the reason they wouldn’t mate was that they didn’t recognize the dance for instance, however, as long as they would still be able to produce fertile offspring if forced together they would still be the same species. To respond to my opponent’s breakdown DNA is the basis of heredity: Yes DNA changes over generations: Yes DNA is responsible for the differences between organisms: Yes The environment acts on the frequency of the changes: to a certain extent There is no physical limit to the amount of changes that can occur in DNA: I disagree for the reasons I have demonstrated above My opponent goes on to present a correlation between changes in DNA over time and a change in species. However, this assumes that such changes are steady and continuous but that cannot be known for sure. I would also like to add that reasonably sure doesn’t cut it in most scientific theories taught in school. Are we only reasonably sure the son will come up tomorrow (in the colloquial since I am aware the Earth rotating is the cause of this), can we be only reasonably sure if I drop a rock it will fall to the ground? Finally, to close this round, how is the theory of evolution not a cum hoc fallacy (correlation equals causation)? [5] 1 . http://www.movetoassurance.com... 2 . http://www.christiananswers.net... 3 . http://www.answersingenesis.org... 4 . http://www.freejesus.net... 5 . http://en.wikipedia.org...