Evolution theory is true

Firstly, I want to add two more definitions that I forgot to mention in the acceptance round. Microevolution: "evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. " Macroevolution: "major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. " Now remember, both of the words above describe the exact same process of evolution, the only difference being time. (macroevolutionary changes are made up of many microevolutionary changes). For this debate, I will attempt to prove: a. The evolution theory is true in regards to microevolution b. Microevolution over long periods of time can produce macroevolutionary changes. Argument 1: There is plenty of evidence that evolutionary processes (mutation, natural selection etc) works and leads to small changes (microevolution). As I said before, microevolution and macroevolution describe exactly the same processes. This means that microevolution involves random gene mutation and natural selection, as macroevolution likewise does. I'm fairely certain that Con can agree that genes mutate and that natural selection presses organisms to adapt to their environments (like the finches on the Galapagos Islands) and that the combination of the two can produce organisms to change and adapt to their environment. An example of microevolution are the Elephants in Africa whom are slowly losing tusks due to genetic mutation and natural selection (in other words, poachers looking for Ivory). The frequency of tuskless females, for instance, has risen from 10% to over 30%. Even Asian elephants are beginning to lose their tusks more frequently too. [1] So I pretty sure that microevolution has been well covered. Argument 2. Microevolutionary change can lead to macroevolutionary change. There is also plenty of evidence for that too. But firstly, I want to ask a question to Con (Con can answer this in round 3): What is the mechanism that prevents a species from continuing to change genetically and over time into what we could consider a different species? In other words, what stops an organism from changing genetically enough to be different from the species it branches from? It is a common myth that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, particularly macro evolution, but this is, well, a myth. There are hundreds of transitional fossils which all give credence to the evolutionary theory, but I will be discussing the evolution of the whale, as this is the best example of evolution. There is enormous amount of evidence that I will never be able to get through in a 10,000 character long argument, but I will showcase the best evidence currently found. We will start with the Sinonyx, a wolf-sized mammal that probably lived in/near water 60 million years ago. It's is also a relative of the hippo. This mammal eventually evolved into Pakicetus, who's skeleton looks similar to the Sinonyx, though more aquatic. This mammal likewise evolved into Ambulocetus, a mammal that is better adapted to an aquatic life like that of a seal. Finally, this mammal evolved into the Dorudon, which is believed to be the ancestor of all modern Baleen whales (such as humback whale and Toothed whales (such as dolphins) and now fully aquatic. [2] As you can see in the source below, all the skeletons of each of the mammals I mentioned above look remarkably similar, yet are able to differ greatly given enough time. Another remarkable thing about this is the fact that these fossil remains are in geological order from oldest to newest, and not found randomly in the ground. Argument 3. Evolution theory predictions have come true. A common argument against evolution is that it is unscientific because it does not use the scientific method. This is true and false. True, in the fact that you cannot produce macroevolutionary changes in a lab because it takes loooooooong periods of time. But it is also false, because Darwin has made predictions that have later been found to be true, such as: a. Transitional whale fossil that had both baleen and teeth was later found to exist (Aetiocetus). b. Different species will appear in different geological layers, but will never overlap (for example, trilobite fossils will never be found with dinosaur fossils, as their geological timeline don't overlap. This has been proven true many many time. c. Archaeopteryx was predicted to have teeth, and it did. etc[3] Argument 4. Yes, before you even say anything, you CAN produce something new with gene mutations *looks at you judgingly*[4] I think that will do for now. I don't want to overload you on round 3. [1] . http://goodnature.nathab.com... [2] . http://whalevolution.tumblr.com... [3] . http://chem.tufts.edu... [4] . http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...