Macro-evoluton is valid

Introduction Con asserts that he believes in micro, but not macro evolution. For this discussion, that is fine. However, already we see extremely large misconceptions with Con’s introduction.The first mistake is that Con confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution is a scientific theory which explains the diversification of life. Abiogenesis on the other hand, is a hypothesis which aims to explain the origin of life.Con also re-hashes a rather infamous statement from Kent Hovind. Despite what Kent has to say on the matter, evolution does not teach that evolution says we came from rocks. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life originated from chemicals and reactions between said chemicals. Something not being alive does not automatically mean a rock. Con’s first argument Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pasteur, yes. However, I’ll quote this from the Talk origins archive:“What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections.” [1]Once again, Con is conflating two things which have very, very little to do with each other. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of relatively simple life-forms from polymers and the such. It does not state that life can come from rotting meat. These are two entirely different matters. Con’s second argument “Information” is a nebulous term which can mean pretty much anything creationists want it to. Whilst I do not usually like to get into defining terms for obvious reasons, it’s exasperating that we have to do this. Ambiguity in a discussion such as this, is not a tactic you want to utilise Con. However, the famous E-Coli experiment has shown that a specific population of said E-Coli has been able to ingest citrate around generation 30, 000 [2]. There was a new nucleotide combination which appeared to give rise to the ability of the E.Coli to ingest citrate. For all intents and purposes, that nucleotide combination can be defined as “new information.” As vacuous a word that is in this discussion, that can be applied here. Your proclamation is incorrect.With reference to Con’s argument regarding mutations, he conveniently forgets that there are 3 types of mutations (in this context anyways) – deleterious, neutral or advantageous. Con is also twisting the evidence to suit his preconceptions. Whilst I will concede that deleterious mutations outnumber advantageous mutations (deleterious mutations can cause cancer from a variety of factors), these are very specific causes. Whilst these cancers or disorders can be hereditary, the most common type of mutation is in fact neutral. Blonde hair [3] and blue eyes [4] are examples of commonly found neutral mutations in humans. Now, if you look to the journal of [3], you’ll find that this quote: “Human KITLG (mouse Kitl) encodes a secreted ligand for the KIT receptor tyrosine kinase and has an essential role in the development, migration and differentiation of many different cell types in the body, including melanocytes, blood cells and germ cells15. Null mutations affecting Kitl or Kit are lethal in mice, and hypomorphic alleles cause white hair, mast cell defects, anemia and sterility16–18. A noncoding SNP (rs12821256) located in a large intergenic region over 350 kb upstream of the KITLG transcription start site is significantly associated with blond hair color in Iceland and The Netherlands.”In other words, a mutation that does not work for KIT or KITL in mice are lethal or harmful, however that gene is also responsible for the development of blond hair. And unless it needs to be pointed out, null mutations are not a common occurrence. You can find a much more general summary of the findings here [5].Con's claim that most mutations are deleterious, is quite frankly, ridiculous. You’ll only find the claim of “most mutations are deleterious” in outdated material or in creationist websites. I’m hazarding a guess that you got this from the latter.We don’t assume that acquired characteristics inherited after birth could be inherited by off-spring. This is not a case of assumption; this is a case of likelihood. We use Punnett squares to determine the likelihood of recessive or dominant genes occurring in offspring.No-one says that muscular parents will produce muscular children. That’s an absurdly superficial look at this, as muscles can be developed by training. Being muscular is not a gene expression. However, fast or slow basal metabolic rates (BMR) can be inherited from parents. That does not mean that parents with high BMR’s will always produce offspring with high metabolic rates; merely that these parents have a higher chance of passing on their high BMR to offspring. I honestly don’t know why Con is even bringing this up to be honest. Con accepts micro-evolution, and this is most certainly what people (even creationists) would consider to be micro-evolution.Con’s Third Argument There are in fact a very large amount of transitional forms, however I suggest we focus on just one. How about Australopithecus Afarensis? Specifically, let's talk about Lucy (AL 288-1). This find forms one of the more important transitional forms as Lucy's pelvis structure, vertebrae and femur strongly suggests bipedality [6].There are missing branches of evolutionary progression, correct. The fossil record is by no means perfect. The circumstances for fossilisation are very specific and only a small segment of all life on Earth has been fossilised. Our knowledge is imperfect because of this, but I have to say… So what? Yes, our knowledge is imperfect, however, that is not any sort of reason to throw out a scientific theory which has much evidence to back it up.Also, Con’s claims about “complex” animals starting at the bottom, is redundant. Yet again, we have an example of you using vacuous wording. This really is starting to get a bit tiresome. Relatively speaking a worm (have no idea what worm you’re talking about in all honesty) is less complex than what can be found in layers above the worm Con is talking about. This goes for Con’s other animals he brought up as well. Con pointing fingers at labelling specific organisms as “complex” is not an argument.I would also like to bring up that Con is citing creationist sources. Which is not a good thing. Creationist sources are absolute garbage. A creationist website is inevitably going to be incorrect; that's just the nature of creationism unfortunately. Whether that be Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, 6000years.org, AllAboutScience, or any other number of other inept creationist websites out there, they all have one thing in common. They are incompetent when it comes to discussions about science. All of them.Because we have so much to go over, Con’s “polystrate trees,” will be left until later on in the debate - either in round 3 or 4. I also ran out of room to discuss Con's use of "kinds," to classify animals, so that will have top be brought up later. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://www.pnas.org... [3] https://www.livescience.com... [4] https://link.springer.com... [5] https://www.livescience.com... [6] https://iho.asu.edu...