Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

If we have shared BOP, I guess my BOP is to show that the Origin of Species from say, single cell organisms to fish, is not likely. Last things first. Bears. I don't mean this to be rude, but it is not up to your opponent to find your sources for you. I already found a brief description of the Cosmos bear thing. If you can find the video, it may help clarify your position. However, to contradict what I just said, here's a Wiki article on the divergence of brown and polar bears. http://en.wikipedia.org... This debate is about the Origin of Species. Neither of us disagree that subspecies split off from common ancestors. What we disagree on is how far the divergence can go, and the mechanism that allows it to happen. It is entirely plausible that brown and polar bears split off from a common ancestor because they are known to crossbreed in the wild and produce fertile, viable offspring, and a small percentage of polar bear DNA is present in most brown bears. (see link above) I hold the position that most differences between divergent sub species, or however you want to classify them, arise from selective breeding due to elimination of unadvantagous traits, and breeding back in of lost traits. This elimination of traits to bring out others can be demonstrated through Punnet squares, as I showed earlier. If I understand Pro's position (please correct me if I am wrong), species diverge into subspecies, and even farther over time, different taxonomic families, even different kingdoms, through small steps of evolution driven by accumulation of small mutations. My position does not go beyond what is observable and repeatable in a controlled experiment. Selective breeding through the elimination of undesirable or unadvantagous traits is done in the lab, the stable, and observed in nature without human intervention. Outcrossing is the term for introducing genes back into a line to increase genetic diversity to reduce the harmful effects of inbreeding. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro's position, so far, does go beyond that which is observable and tested. He argues that mutations are a primary driver behind speciation (not an observed event, but hypothesized), and polar bears would have diverged not because of genetic selection of existing traits in a common ancestor, but because of numerous far reaching advantageous mutations. If a polar bear were merely an albino or albinoid mutant, how could they end up with jet black skin? “Albinism results from inheritance of recessive gene alleles and is known to affect all vertebrates, including humans. While an organism with complete absence of melanin is called an albino (UK /ælG2;biH0;noA0;/,[1] or US /ælG2;ba=8;noA0;/)[2] an organism with only a diminished amount of melanin is described as albinoid.” http://en.wikipedia.org... ...and light conducting hairs, that are also hollow to always maintain insulation, even while submerged, and webbed paws? This doesn't sound like a slightly more camouflaged brown bear through accident, this sounds more like a genetic package assembled for survival in a specific environment. Did this creature's genetic code assemble itself over time and chance, or were the genes already present in a common ancestor? Which method of such radical change has been demonstrated in nature and the lab? Irreducible Complexity, Kenneth Miller, and complex mechanisms arising by chance: I don't know quite enough about chemistry to make the argument for irreducible complexity, that's why I haven't done so in this debate, nor do I plan on doing so. But, I can say that even if his description of biochemistry is correct, there are flaws in his argument. First, Miller does not demonstrate how these individual components come together. All he shows is how smaller components in a complex system can be utilized for other tasks. In his model, they start off as individual components that just happen to converge. But how? Colored hexagons converging? Can this process of simple useful mechanisms self-assembling to make more complex useful mechanisms be observed? It's quite a jump in logic to say that because a watch's components can be put to other uses when disassembled, that the watch components were assembled into a functional watch by chance. Our tails: “Correct. The tail would have been with us as a left over from the common ancestor and shows a distant relation to the monkey family or anything else.” If this is the case, there should be a known gene that can be demonstrated to have been carried from monkeys, through apes, and into man. That same gene would cause tails in a small number of humans. If so, what is this gene, and where are the genetic tests to show this came from monkeys, persisted through apes, and is still in some of us? Toofs, also known as Teef, or in Mankind, the Grill: “What may I ask is the purpose of wisdom teeth since people want them removed?” According to one of my sources in R2, it can be an asset for grinding food. With pliers or snips, the most force can be applied to the material closest to the fulcrum. A tooth at the very back of the jaw would be better for chewing tough food because of the leverage advantage. Now, why were wisdom teeth brought into this in the first place? How do they demonstrate origin of new species? We both agree mutations exist. Not all mutations are advantageous. The most notorious in humans are fatal. And not all mutations would lead to a new species. Just because we have this mutation for smaller jaws (if it is a mutation), doesn't mean we got our teeth and jaws from apes. It just means we had a certain number of teeth, and now many people don't have room. And having a trait that requires surgical extraction is certainly not an evolutionary advantage. People would have an advantage if they DIDN'T have a jaw too small for their teeth.