Does the evolution model offer sufficient explanation for the diversity of life forms

My opponent starts by claiming Darwin’s conception of evolution had natural selection at the focal point of his theory, which is insufficient to establish the resolution. However, this shouldn’t be taken into current consideration. This isn’t a debate about scientific history, but on the current status of evolution, which includes mutation. Just because Darwin didn’t have evolution figured out to a T doesn’t mean anything here and now. As Con quoted, evolution by mutation and natural selection are the forefront of evolutionary theory. He states scientists are confused on the issue, but his citation is all about clearing up misconceptions about natural selection. Natural selection produces adaptations in a negative sense, not in some guiding hand sense. That was the point of the Berkeley’s article. He also states that scientists reject the claim that mutations can explain the variation of life. But the first sentence of his quote clearly states they are dealing with “Some models of speciation”. It is only dealing with some models, not making a statement about all models. And second, it’s dealing with speciation, not macroevolution. Speciation is creation of a new species. I assume this isn’t what Con means by macroevolution, as speciation has been observed many times [1]. Ultimately, Con’s main argument has to do with attacking the history of evolution and misconstructions of evolution (such as claiming the big bang has something to do with evolution), rather than the current status of evolution itself. Entailment My opponent has stated the common creationist claim that macroevolution hasn’t been observed. However, just because something hasn’t been directly observed doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to believe it. For example, Pluto was discovered in 1930 [2], yet Pluto’s year is 248 Earth years [3]. If it’s irrational to believe something that hasn’t been observed, then how could we believe in Pluto’s revolution period, or that it even fully goes around the sun? This is because we understand certain conditions of our universe. The same goes for evolution. One reason to accept macroevolution is because it logically follows from microevolution. Con has already conceded microevolution, he accepts small changes can happen. However, macroevolution is simply the result of many small changes. Microevolution is analogous to the ability to collect coins and macroevolution is the state of having a large amount of coins. Rejecting macroevolution yet accepting microevolution is like claiming you can collect coins, but you cannot have a large amount of coins. Therefore, Con must show there is a limitation on the number of small changes over time. Another analogy is outlined in this graphic below. Therefore, since we know of no limitation, we are rational in accepting macroevolution as an explanation for life. Fossil Record Fossils provide a snapshot into the past. So, we would expect to see the ordering of fossils in accordance to our evolutionary models. This is exactly what we see, life goes from simple to complex[5][6] and the ordering has no marginally misplaced fossils. As Richard Dawkins put it "Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.” [7] ERVs The last reason for accepting evolution is the presence of ERVs. These are sequences in the genome that comes from ancient viral infections [8]. If we were to find common ERVs this would be evidence of evolution, it would point to a common ancestor that had a viral infection. We have discovered that we do indeed share ERVs with other primates. "In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA . There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism. This is powerful evidence that we have a common ancestor with other primates, which itself shows that evolution has huge explanatory power in regards to the diversity of life. The resolution is affirmed. Back to Con. Sources ************************************** [1] https://web.archive.org... [2] http://www.history.com... [3] http://www.nasa.gov... [4] https://www.agiweb.org... [5] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [6] https://www.agiweb.org... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012