Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

I need to make this perfectly clear from the beginning: this is not a debate into the origin of life; it is about whether evolution is true regardless of how the first life developed. In round 1 it was established "Macro-evolution (the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor)". My perspective is that even if you take a literal reading of Genesis then large-scale evolution can happen due to sexual reproduction creating variation within a population and that speciation is able to create new species. Regardless of how the first life was created evolution is a fact. Evolution (descent with modification) has been framed as universal generalization and subsequently formulated as a law of nature. The origin of life is not relevant to this discussion, it debate is whether one species can develop into another from a common ancestor. This is demonstrably true regardless of how or when the first life developed based on the nature of variety in populations due to mutations and sexual reproduction I am simply saying that the issue is not whether Genesis is true; just that if this is true then macro-evolution is still compatible. What I mean by this: Genesis is simply the origin of life; this is not evolution but abiogenesis. So what I am arguing is that even if you take this account as if it is true: then macro-evolution is still true because of the nature of sexual reproduction and speciation. Perhaps I didn"t make myself clear: imagine Genesis is simply a description of the ancestors of life. What I mean by this: instead of being a prokaryote 3.8 billion years ago: but that "God" created organisms which, via sexual selection, was able to develop into new species over a period of generations. So instead of abiogenesis being the origin of life: but that "God" created animals and plants with the ability to change and develop over time, and that these changes and developments can give rise to new species (macro-evolution). So to make it clear: macroevolution generally refers see larger-scale changes in populations. Lineages can change slowly or quickly. The reason in which most people dismiss evolution is because they have a misunderstand of the nature of evolution and that the large scale effects of evolution (macro-evolution) which is easily observable usually happens over too much of an extended period for humans to see. However what has been observed in that lineage-splitting (or speciation) which is intimately linked with evolution. Observed instances of speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few examples of observed speciation: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas However some of the most compelling case of macro-evolution (in the form of speciation) comes from Drosophila (fruit fly) evolution. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972). There has also been evidence from Meffert and Bryant (1991) using houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behaviour that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. We can observe examples of rapid evolution (in the form of speciation) but this doesn"t always need to be observed in order to fit this in with a biblical reading. Because of the nature of evolution; it is a continual process which doesn"t have a "goal". So what this means is (even taking into account a biblical beginning) this means that regardless of where you begin as the origin of life; macro-evolution is always possible, just on timescales which are not usually accessible to humans (as we are finite beings which are prone to dying every now and then; and given that the average life expectancy of a human on the earth is 67.2 years (65.0 years for males and 69.5 years for females) for 2005"2010, according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision,) and changes large scale changes to animals in that time is usually difficult to see: as evolution is not as such that these huge changes happen all that often). As I have already explained: the biblical description of being born "after their kind" is exactly the same as what evolution predicts, and that if an organism gave birth to an offspring which was not the same "kind" (species) then that would actually be evidence against evolution and not for it. Macro-evolution is simply descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale. It is that these small changes (which come from sexual reproduction) add up over time and these create large changes. That at no point does a dog produce a non-dog it is simply that over many generations these changes accumulate and then split into new species. The nature of ring species is that a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. This is exactly what evolution predicts; that species do not form by the Ensatina salamander giving birth to a non-Ensatina salamander; but that over time the changes between two groups become too different to each other in that they can"t interbreed and therefore become a new species. It isn"t that the Ensatina salamander "wants nothing to do with" is not how scientists test whether a species can interbreed; they do it by comparing the their DNA and whether they will be able to produce a fertile offspring. Simply: the debate is not whether Genesis is the origin of life: it is whether macro-evolution can be reconciled with evolution and due to descent with evolution and time this is always possible, regardless of how the first life developed.