Evolution is a scientific fact.

Lol. Thank you Mr. Skeptic for the laughs. Your first paragraph was funny, but I was rofl after I read the rest of your arguments. We will see that I have not created any 'acts of folly' as accused, my quotes (of your sources) are absolutely in context as I will defend, and as I will reiterate, you have yet to provide us with any valid evidence. def. of evo: Oh Mr. Skeptic, my 'definition' was not meant to be a comprehensive definition. I was simply narrowing down the field we need to focus on because, as I explained, your definition is too broad for debate. Yes I did read your definition in it's entirety. And if you will look a little closer you will find that your definition encompasses my definition. Notice, from your definition: "It(evolution) embraces everything from slight changes...to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." My point is that you need not focus on the other aspects of your definition because the Neg is not arguing anything other than evolution as the 'successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, etc.' And you MUST prove this aspect of your definition. You may attempt to prove lesser points, but there is only one point of evolution in question and you can not provide the least shred of evidence that 'successive alterations led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." Your evidence satisfies neither definition. Evolution - Speciation 1. Definition of speciation contentious, too broad and ambiguous. My opponent seems to misunderstand the situation here, I am not making any assumptions. Please refer back to the previous argument and direct quotations from the studies themselves. My opponent actually makes my point astoundingly clear, please consider his statements: "This means that most biologists will agree that bacteria and humans are different species - even if they are at conflict with the definition of species. I highly doubt that my opponent would be willing to say that the different animal kingdoms are of the same species or of some sort." "the difference between a plant and a cat is demonstrably obvious." You are all too correct Mr. Skeptic and thank you for your insight. Bacteria and Humans are different species, the different animal kingdoms are different species, and yes a plant and a cat are demonstrably different. We will use your standard of observable difference. The problem is that NONE of your evidence demonstrates any of the above mentioned changes. Actually, as I pointed out, your 'speciation' is so trivial even your sources deny that they actually prove anything. Please, look at the observations, there are no observations of plants turning into cats, no observations of bacteria turning into humans, no observations of animals changing kingdom. There are simply worms turning into more worms, one primrose turning into another primrose, corn turning into corn, etc etc. Mr. Skeptic has described for us what an observation of speciation SHOULD look like, and provided us with a standard by which we can judge the validity of an observation, unfortunately NONE of the evidence comes remotely close to meeting this standard. 2. Quotations from the sources: "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation." Him:Strawman My opponent is either wrong or lying, Part 5 and all of part 5 (not just 5.9) is the section dedicated to experiments and my opponents source clearly asserts that all the experiments in part 5 turned out a complete bust, once again my opponents sources concede. Read it for yourself. "In fact, then, both biologists and paleontologists must infer what happens, and it is very difficult to sort out where fact ends and where interpretation begins." Him: "This is present in practically all fields of science, so I don't see your point in an attempt at exploiting this." Sorry, Mr. Skeptic, if you are attempting to PROVE something is a FACT, you shouldn't admit this, 'it is very difficult to sort out where fact ends and where interpretation begins.' "Notice that since biologists have not seen a speciation event that everyone would believe, biologists are driven to theory-heavy models of speciation, rather than a rich store of observational evidence." The group 'everyone' in context, is the community of biologists who are studying speciation, not creationists, The quote, IN CONTEXT, asserts that even the biologists IN THE FIELD OF SPECIATION are forced to rely on theory based models because they have NOT SEEN A SPECIATION EVENT. 3. I assume my opponent believes his sources. You may not 'believe' your own sources (seriously?). But you clearly thought they were reliable enough to be considered in the debate. I am sorry that they don't agree with you, but it is too late to un-post them now. Conclusion and few remarks: I have not done a single evidence search nor posted any additional evidence in this debate, and for good reason. The foundation of this debate is not about the evidence but about the absolute lack thereof. My use of the evidence was more accurate and more insightful than my opponents (even though he provided all the sources). My initial argument remains the same, if my opponent wishes to assert that evolution includes the "successive alterations led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." then he better be able to back it up, and as suspected, he hasn't be able to provide any evidence to suggest the progression from species to species and he certainly hasn't provided any evidence to show changes from one family to another or from one kingdom to another. The fact is that this evidence simply does not exist, and certainly hasn't been presented by my opponent, therefore Evolution can NOT be considered a FACT.