Evolution is scientific.

1. Con says macroevolution has not been observed, and ignores the reality that you need not witness macroevolution firsthand to prove it verifiable. I have explained why this is so, sourced scientific links confirming that this is so, and as such you have no reason to accept Con's implication that it's not so considering (a) he's not a scientist, (b) he's offered no evidence, and (c) even if he offered evidence in the next round, it would be bad conduct to present it -- and considered abusive -- since I won't have the opportunity to respond. Con has presented zero arguments that macroevolution is not possible, and has not adequately refuted my points proving how and why it is possible to observe macroevolution indirectly. Moreover, the origin of *A NEW SPECIES* has in fact been observed [1] meaning Con is simply choosing to conveniently ignore this reality and state the opposite which is in fact not true, as evidenced by his lack of proof. Additionally, Con blatantly ignored these points from the last round so I'll just repeat them: Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes, and the concept of macorevolution itself makes that nearly impossible. Still, we are able to make inferences about things we have not observed first hand such as the existence of dinosaurs. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc. Consistency with the fossil record is paramount, and the predictions regarding macroevolution have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting macroevolution is overwhelming. This point is more than negated. 2. Con says that a mutated cockroach would still be a cockroach. Once again, I've explained in genetic terms how after innumerable mutations one can easily be categorized as a different species. For example, how would you differentiate between the species of monkeys and apes? Well, compared to monkeys apes are tailless, have very versatile shoulder joints, and have brains about twice as large. In other words, these genetic mutations are specifically what differentiates these two and makes them considered different species. In other words, it very perfectly logically follows that after a certain number of mutations, something can and would be considered a different species hence macroevolution being a logical (and observable) concept. Since we cannot observe macroevolution in most cases in our lifetimes, we must look to things like fossil records to confirm this theory. Once again, the theory of macroevolution is consistent with the fossil record. Point negated. 3. Con says I have not proven that we've observed the origin of entire new species both in the laboratory and in the wild. On the contrary, I gave a handful of reliable sources indicating otherwise. Con says, "Just because you say that the origin of entire new species have been observed, does not mean it happened." However, in the last round I presented a source proving that a new species (of bacteria) has in fact been created which has never been denied nor disputed by the scientific community, nor has Con given evidence that it was. There are other examples [2], but the scientifically accepted bacteria example from the last round already proves this contention false. Point negated. 4. Con's comparison of macroevolution to crossbreeding a chihuahua is ridiculous. Crossbreeding refers to an animal with purebred parents of two different breeds, varieties, or populations [3]. This is entirely different from the concept of macroevolution. Crossbreeding dogs does not even apply considering there you are crossbreeding TWO OF THE SAME SPECIES. Fail. Macroevolution refers to changes in organisms via natural selection which are significant enough so that they become considered an entirely new species. Once again, a dog that was crossbred is not a new species amongst many other prevalent differences. Point negated. 5. Con writes, "So the best suited qualities of an organism get passed on and on so that the organism eventually gets better and better. But this is just "selecting" the best qualities of the qualities that are already present. Therefore the animal will get better and better suited for its environment, but it will never gain information." This couldn't be further from the truth. Macroevolution does not refer to utilizing qualities that were already present, but rather the evolution of new traits in order to allow one to adapt to their environment (and survive). Con simply manipulated the term but this description is not accurate or supported. Additionally, it is entirely non-sensical to say that after evolution one has not gained new information. For instance, even Con concedes to microevolution such as a cockroach adapting to be immune to certain pesticides. Right there we see that the cockroach has "gained information" insofar as their natural, biological ability to ward off pesticides that they couldn't before. As such, this completely negates Con's point and proves it to be absolutely false. Additionally, Con says that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution when I have given a substantial amount of evidence proving the contrary. For instance, "the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a force on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read. The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments" [4]. In other words, natural selection very blatantly and obviously has direct ties to macroevolution, and in fact helps us validate it. Point negated. 6. Con insists his Chihuahua crossbreeding example negates evolution; please extend my argument from #4 to show how this is false. 7. Con says it's false to conclude that to prevent extinction, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. As I said, geneticists and concepts of genetics itself completely shut down this argument. The only evidence Con offers against these genetic scientists who prove how/why Con is wrong is, "As the definition I posted above says, the organism will grow better suited for its environment, but will never gain information." However, I've already explained how this is a lie considering the cockroach example perfectly demonstrates an organism gaining new information -- and that's just at the micro level let alone at the macro level. Point negated. 8. Con simply states I haven't proven macroevolution. On the contrary, I have explained both the scientific method and the criteria necessary to be considered a valid scientific theory. Macroevolution meets every one of those standards, meaning it can and should be considered scientific. The only thing Con challenged was whether or not evolution has been observed. I have proven that it has via examples and explanations about what we do need to observe in order to be able to verify it (including a consistent fossil record). A consistent fossil record and other observable research has in fact been concluded to verify the theory of macroevolution. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://atheism.about.com...