Macro-evolution Never Occured

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.This is true to microevolution but not to macroevolution.Macro-evolution is an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis). It's a probable scientific explanation of how diverse sorts of biological specie exists. Basically, this is the second phase of biological evolution being the micro-evolution the first phase.It is said that Microevolution ( i.e. The first phase of biological evolution) will inevitably undergo macroevolution ( i.e. Speciation of an organism dramatically results into a completely different specie than its ancestor) as time goes by.Con's definition of macroevolution as "evolution on a scale of separated gene pools" is a mere theory in itself.Everything in macroevolution speciation is just a theory.Evolutionists scientists say that microevolution will inevitably undergo macroevolution with just one variable: time.This is the mathematical formula that explains macro-evolution:Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation + sufficient time = Diversification and Speciation.The crux of the argument is TIME and indeed, a long one that none of the scientists can observe. Science works on induction and hence, because macro-evolution cannot be observed science could only speculate about it. Science works on induction. It can only know what it can only observe with the human senses. This is naturalistic per se. This is what we call scientific. On the other hand, philosophy seeks to explain things on the basis of logic and reason. Consider this classic example:Up-to-date, there is no scientific evidence that the macro part of biological evolution exists. We do not yet have a scientifically known mechanism in biological science wherein a new gene is added into a genome. Scientists would only used a "long time" a priori knowledge plus " micro-evolution scientific mechanisms" in order to come up with this scientific hypothesis of macro-evolution.To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the world that meets three requirements: it is supported by evidence, is testable and falsifiable, and can be used to make predictions. My original argument is that macroevolution never happened and that it is merely a theory.As I have expounded on earlier, the reason why macroevolution is just a theory is due to the fact that everything it has comes from microevolution plus sufficient time. RefutationsCon's argument: O. Gigas was an actual speciation of the O. Lamarckiana.Pro's response: Hugo De Vries (1848-1935) demonstrated from his research on the evening primrose that dramatic new varieties and traits can arise suddenly without explanation. He and others believed that these macromutations finally gave evolutionists a mechanism for producing new genetic traits. Further research found De Vries's changes were not due to mutations, but unequal chromosome numbers in evening primroses that cause hybrid plants to appear, producing new varieties. The idea of macromutations was briefly resurrected in the 1940s by University of California Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. He concluded that the origin of major new animal and plant varieties was due to "hopeful monsters," single mutations involving large and complex changes. We now know that hundreds or thousands of mutations are required to produce all the changes needed to evolve a new animal order. Additionally, no satisfactory mechanism for macromutations has been proposed by modern neo-Darwinists. Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear -- neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information. "Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues" (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death. Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, the honor society for scientists, added that "many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation(purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!' I say" (Margulis, 2006, 194).Con's argument: Kalendar's paper "examined the role of the BARE-1 retrotransposon in genome diversification in individuals at the Evolution Canyon microsite, Lower Nahal Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel." Species were not artificially cultivated from a set time, but "collected at six stations located along a 300-m north-south transect across the NFS (North Facing Slope) and SFS (South Facing Slope) of Evolution Canyon." The results concluded that "the SFS [plants have] larger genomes than the NFS [plants]," which does not in anyway prove that "transposons copying and splicing rapidly" could cause rapid evolution. Even if this is true, and some papers seem to uphold this view (ex. Ellison 2015), this would still be a proof of macroevolution. Pro's response:Con should have stated WHY did he think that transposons are still a proof of macroevolution.On Gene Duplication Gene duplication does occur.It occurs within the microevolution level.Reference:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.britannica.com... In fact,just like mutation, epigenetics, genetic drift,transposons,etc., it only occurs in microevolution.To insist that gene duplication is a mechanism of macroevolution is to insist the unproven theory of macroevolution! (Go back to the earlier argument on this round)"The vast majority of mutations eventually arising in the duplicates are harmful, meaning they result in function loss; the duplicates would need to stick around for generations before acquiring helpful mutations."Reference:http://www.scientificamerican.com...On EpigeneticsEpigenetics does not support speciation in the macroevolution level.Epigenetic changes, or chemical markers on DNA that can turn genes on or off, may play a role in natural selection.It involve the addition of chemical tags in an organism's genome without actually changing the genetic code.Both the DNA nucleotides and the proteins that DNA is wrapped around (called histones) the genes can be chemically tagged by different types of controlling molecules that determine how genes are turned on and off. Thus, the epigenetic regulation of the genome can produce differences in traits without actually being related to changes in the DNA sequence itself. What's even more amazing is that these changes can be inherited over multiple generations. Thus, epigenetic changes unexpectedly facilitate variability and speciation within the gene pool.Lamarckian view of inheritance (a belief that acquired, rather than genetic, characteristics, can be passed on) is vindicated by epigenetics only in its sense that acquired characteristics can be passed on.This is without any reference to new genes but only of new combination of preexisting genes. Reference(s):http://www.livescience.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://discovermagazine.com...On BiochemistryBiologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than "98.5% identical," a commonly quoted statistic.More recent studies have shown that the true genetic divergence between humans and apes is probably closer to 5%.Reference:http://news.nationalgeographic.com...On the FossilsPro's authoritative argument stands unrefuted.The argument from authority which Pro has shown does not negate the facts presented.The fact is that it fully supports the facts!Con said that I.C. is scientific if a creator is scientific.I will not get into the question of a creator. I will simply respond to this with the following:Likewise, I will not get into the question of a creator. I will simply respond to this with the following:Macroevolution is scientific if the way it is interpreted is scientific.Well, it is not. Macroevolution is interpreted via microevolution.The reason why macroevolution is just a mere theory as explained earlier.It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy (Dr. Grady S. McMurty, 2011).