Macro-evolution is a Myth

Argument of ConI will start my argument explaining how evolution works. Here are some facts that are important and necessary for evolution to work: Living organisms reproduce. Reproduction makes populations grow exponentially. The growth would be infinite without a limit. Life needs resources. Earth has a finite space and finite amount of resources. Mutations happen. We can be sure about this because of radiation and imperfect DNA replication. Most of an organism traits are coded in its DNA. Then:Exponential growth + Limited resources = Competition. [1]DNA + mutation = Variation. [2]Variation + Competition = Natural Selection. [3]Natural Selection + Time = Evolution. Everything in this explanation is accepted by Pro except that he doesn't believe that with enough time speciation is possible."In order for Con to win this debate, he must show how could a new gene be added into a genome. Where did this gene came from in order to cause speciation."Duplication of genomeFor variation to happen genes only need to change, it should be considered new genes but adding genes is possible.First you need to know that duplication of genome is not only possible, but we know about cases that survived and were able to reproduce. [4][5]Duplication of genome is "exactly what it sounds like: an event which creates an organism with additional copies of the entire genome of a species." [6]Adding new genes is really simple and important, but variation of the genome of populations is way more important.Now I already showed that speciation is possible in my rebuttal. Now I will show that it is inevitable.Evolution of the languages, againI will continue with the analogy of the evolution of languages. But now I will talk also about genes. Genes have an analogous counterpart in the evolution of languages: Words.They are similar because both are transmitted imperfectly by generations and their meaning depend on the environment.We know that both change over time. Here is a simple example with Latin languages:Spanish: non -> noPortuguese: non -> naoPeople can still comprehend each other. But there are some changes that make the communication impossible or difficult:Spanish -> ovum -> ovo -> uevo -> huevoFrench -> ovum -> ov -> of -> oeufThis means that with enough time the variations are so big that communication is impossible. Now the logic of this is very simple and it works on evolution. Genes are the minimal unit of information in the genome while words are analogous in languages so the variations work the same way. But how do we see speciation? As I stated in my rebuttal the problem comes from the definition of species. Languages are defined in a similar way. But let's see how different languages can be: Spanish can understand approximately: [7] 85% of Portuguese 80% of Italian 80% of French So we can be sure that we can't know exactly where a language start and where it ends related to it's changes. The same things happens with species. The reproduction is only possible when there is a high similarity between the individuals just like communication is only possible when there is a high similarity between the languages of the speakers. For example: Lions and tigers can reproduce but males are going to be sterile. [8] Donkeys and horses can reproduce too but the offspring is sterile. Sheep and goats can reproduce but most offspring die very early. Cows and buffalo are able to reproduce in lab, but usually offspring die at 8 months. So where does a specie start and where does it end? Those are considered different species because offspring are sterile, reproduction is not considered a "success". Speciation is inevitable. Evidence The fossil record "Fossils provide a unique view into the history of life by showing the forms and features of life in the past. Fossils tell us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history. For instance, in 1998, scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology. Though the ffossil record does not include every plant and animal that ever lived, it provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution. The fossil record is a remarkable gift for the study of nature." [9] We were able to build a record of fossils that match the predictions of evolution. Fossil: any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc. Thanks to this we can show an evolutionary sequence: Estromatolitos Grypania Vernanimalcula Pikaia Haikouchthys Psarolepis Eusthenopteron Panderichthys Tiktaalik [10] Acanthostega Ichthyostega Hynerpeton [11] Casineria Archaeothyris [12] Procynosuchus Morganucodon Fruitafossor Heomaia Purgatorius Plesiadapis Teilhardina Aegyptopithecus [13] Proconsul Pierolapithecus catalaunicus Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus Australopithecus anamensis [14] Australopithecus afarensis [15] Australopithecus africanus [16] Homo habilis [17] Homo ergaster [18] Homo antecessor [19] Homo heidelbergensis [20] Homo Sapiens Idaltu [21] Homo Sapiens Sapiens [21] Now, all of them are ordered chronologically and show that differences and similarities are related to the time those species were alive. Genetic evidence "Darwin developed his theory of evolution by looking at scientific evidence available in the mid-1800s. Since then, the whole field of genetics has developed, adding a powerful independent line of evidence in support of evolution. Genes show how the physical traits of living things are handed down and modified from one generation to the next. By comparing the DNA of many organisms, scientists can map the relationships between species. This map is in remarkable agreement with Darwin’s predictions. The structure of chromosomes and particular genetic sequences point to the conclusion not just of common design, but common descent as well." [22] Just like with the fossil record, the study of DNA, genes and the genome helps us build a record with the variation and evolution of living organisms. But not only that. It allow us to have experimentation in labs and work with vaccines. The study of the genome also shows us direct similarities between species. [23] This and the fossil record represent a strong evince for the theory of evolution. Predictions Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000). Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000). Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003). Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003). Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003). Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982). Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005). [24] Another way to test a scientific theory is using predictions. The power of predictions come from being able to know things that we would not know otherwise. After this predidctions were tested and verified it was clear than reality works as evolution predicted. Therefore predictions are more evidence that support the theory. End of argument of con I just showed the logic and the evidence for the theory of evolution. I proved it is a fact and it is real. And there are no arguments for Pro's claims. I showed how predictions match with reality and how it is a very complete model that is simple and logical. Thanks for the debate. Vote for CON. Sources 1. http://www.biologyreference.com... 2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://www.genetics.org... 6. http://genomevolution.org... 7. http://how-to-learn-any-language.com... 8. http://ligerliger.com... 9. http://biologos.org... 10. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com... 11. http://fossil.wikia.com... 12. http://reptileevolution.com... 13. http://archaeologyinfo.com... 14. http://archaeologyinfo.com... 15. http://archaeologyinfo.com... 16. http://archaeologyinfo.com... 17. http://archaeologyinfo.com... 18. http://archaeologyinfo.com... 19. http://www.modernhumanorigins.net... 20. humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis 21. http://www.ecotao.com... 22. http://biologos.org... 23. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 24. http://www.talkorigins.org...