Macro-evolution Never Occured

Gene Duplication and MacroevolutionCon was very wrong in his assetion that speciation is equivalent to macroevolution because both macroevolution and microevolution talk about changes in allele frequency.The only thing which varies is the temporal scales.This blunder of Con made him to assert that what I mean by "fruit flies could not evolve" is that fruit flies cannot speciate.The way Con thinks it is not very right because Pro has already and indeed, has always argued that speciation does occur albeit only at the microevolution level.Microevolution is about variation within the species and thatvariations have limitations. That limitation is within the genetic information of the species.For example, the new species raphanobrassica is a speciation at the microevolution level.The species in question is still undoubtly within the taxonomy of flora (kingdom plantae).Why some of the ancient animals different from todays' animals? The reason is that microevolutionary changes did occur.On the other hand, macroevolution is about big, huge and super changes as the name per se shows.The example of this is shown in the acronym FARM ( from fish to amphibian to reptiles to mammals) and as has been already shown in the previous rounds, this is a mere philosophical a priori theory integrated in science by means of microevolutionary facts.It is agreed upon by both Pro and Con that Gene Duplication is a reorganization of an (preexisting) allele.It is clear that Gene Duplication does not cause new genes but only new combinations of genes.Therefore, we can conclude that Gene Duplication does not cause speciation at the macroevolution level.Mutation and MacroevolutionBy 1918,American Geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller had collected sufficient evidence in Drosophilia to be confident that De Vries' s mutants were not due to actual changes in the genes but rather were the result of recombinations and anomalies in the segragation of choromosomes...the transformation of O. Lamarckiana wasn't caused by a new mutation at all; instead, it was caused by a sudden expression of a group of cryptic ressesive mutations that has been accumulating for generations on a pair of balanced lethals.Reference:https://books.google.com.ph...'s%20changes%20were%20not%20due%20to%20mutations&f=falseTrasnsposons and HomologyCon asked: "Is not the addition of new alleles a direct tool for the creation of new phenotypes and genotype? Does this not necessarily lead to speciation, and macro-evolutionary changes in the long term level?"Pro's response to Con's twofold questions:Yes and Yes. The addition of new alleles is a direct tool for the creation of new phenotypes and genotype.This wouldnecessarily lead to speciation, and macro-evolutionary changes in the long term level BUT have you or have any scientist up-to-date know any biological mechanism that is without controversy clearly producing new alleles? Enough of the theories on macroevolution.The original argument of Pro is still standing still.Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg " ~The Selfish Gene (1976).In the theory of macroevolution, the answer is the egg but in real science, it is the chicken!Reference:http://www.nbcnews.com...What this shows is that "all species" do not share the same "common ancestor."Up-to-date, no scientists know what the first species are.But scientists now know that a fully formed species might have been in existence preceding its offspring.These three species are three distinct species with their own genetic information very different from each other:Species 1: G. GallusSpecies 2: C. LupusSpecies 3: B. TaurusEvolution does not talk about the origin of the first species but rather, it merely and only talks about of what happened after the species came into existence.Therefore, we cannot theorize that "all species have a common ancestor."Rather, what we can only conclude (based on scientific evidence) is that every species has their own common ancestry and not that "all species have a common ancestor."Mammals from mammals and not mammals from reptiles.Birds from birds and not birds from reptiles.Amphibians from amphibians and not amphians from fish.Epigenetics Con misapprehended the argument of Pro. Even Con himself equated speciation ( which highly involves the "coming of new genes into existence") with macroevolution in the very same round. Con asked:Are you saying that my desire of a tail will create a tail? Or my desire to be a monkey will make me a monkey? Pro's response:Con needs to know that in the science of Epigenetics, the theory of use and disuse is an essential part.Modern Genetics have sufficient scientific evidence on this.In Epigenetics, phenotype affects genotype.This means that voluntary acts and voluntary use is part of Epigenetics.Reference(s):http://content.time.com...http://www.livescience.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...FossilsIn 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings (Fedducia, 1993).Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton, suggesting that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all. CONCLUSIONS:Con did not refute the original proposition as you yourselves can read in this debate challenge.Pro had a critical analysis on this type of educational flatform of discussion as well as a cogent argument in this debate challenge.The resolution is that macroevolution never happened.