Evolution is a fact of science, deducible with logic, confirmed with evidence.

It is my intent to argue that not only is evolution occurring, but that it is the only intelligent explanation for the variety of species that we see upon this planet. This will happen in the presence of adequate evidence for evolution and the absence of any viable alternative. Some definitions and explanations thereof that we should agree upon: Fact - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened. If evidence has been observed and and a conclusion can be inferred with a high degree of probability, (We don't know for certain that JFK was a Catholic; he might have been lying for some reason or another. We can be relatively sure nonetheless.) it is a fact. Observable - able to be verified through observation. Observations need not strictly consist of watching it as it happens; analyzing the evidence after the fact is a form of observation. Similar to the way conclusions can be drawn in a crime scene even though there were no witnesses, we can draw conclusions about evolution based on the evidence it leaves behind. Evolution - the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. I will not subscribe to the "many kinds of evolution" idea popularized by Kent Hovind. As far as scientists and this debate are concerned, evolution will refer strictly to biological evolution. This debate was initiated the in the comments section of this debate: http://www.debate.org... My first post will consist entirely of the evidence I wish to present FOR evolution. Guitargod will attempt to reduce my evidence in any number of logically valid ways, present his evidence against evolution, and/or present evidence that something other than evolution occurred. My second post will consist of evidence for evolution as a history of life, defenses against criticism, and responses to the opposing evidence. Subsequent posts will consist entirely of defenses of my evidence and responses to opposing evidence. I would ask that his (as will my) final post consist of nothing but rebuttals, as I will not have the chance to respond to new arguments/criticisms. In the case that he does so, I urge viewers to pay attention to the comments section for my replies. THE EVIDENCE: (1) The logic behind evolution. Evolution is based upon the following observations: A - All life reproduces. B - Not only does it reproduce, but it does so imperfectly. Mutations may provide various effects, beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, defined below. C – Thee exist entities in nature which cause some organisms to be more or less likely to pass on their genes. ∴ D – From generation to generation, organisms within a species will change in such a way that they are more likely to pass on their genes. A beneficial mutation is defined as a mutation in a gene that makes it more likely for that gene to be passed on to the next generation. A deleterious mutation is a mutation in a gene that makes it less likely for that gene to be passed on to the next generation. A neutral mutation is a mutation that does not affect the likelihood of a gene being passed on to the next generation. Most mutations are neutral. Assume a gene is subject to a deleterious mutation. The probability that this organism will pass this gene on to the next generation is less than normal. With multiple generations – if there are any – these probabilities are compounded. Not only is it unlikely for the first generation of the gene to pass on, it is equally unlikely for it to pass on from there. After many generations, the deleterious gene is simply removed from the gene pool. Assume a gene is subject to a beneficial mutation. The probability that this organism will pass this gene on to the next generation is higher than normal. With multiple generations, these probabilities compound. After many generations, the beneficial gene will dominate the gene pool. Assume a gene is subject to a neutral mutation. This organism is just as likely to survive in the world as any other, so the mutation may or may not persist. This is what many creationists refer to as microevolution. What most of them claim to have a problem with is macroevolution, more scientifically known as speciation. This is where two groups within a species become so different that they can no longer interbreed. Here is the logic: E - Species inhabit regions as opposed to points. F – The entities that determine what is more or less likely to be passed on are variable depending on where the organism is. ∴G – Two geographically different groups of the same species are subjected to different environments. ∴H - What is beneficial for one group within a species may not be beneficial or may even be deleterious to another geographically separated group within that species. D - (from above) ∴I – Different groups of organisms belonging to the same species acquire mutations with different effects J – This process can be repeated with other beneficial mutations. K – This occurs not only with beneficial mutations, but with neutral mutations. ∴ L – in the passage of time, two different groups will become more genetically different. M – If two groups of organisms have sufficiently different genetic codes, they cannot interbreed. ∴N – After many generations, two groups, formerly part of the same species, will not be able to interbreed. You see, macroevolution is no different from microevolution applied to a population spanning a variable environment. (2) Observation. I should first be mentioned that all of the premises in the above argument have been observed. However, for this section I will instead present observations of the evolutionary process as a whole. Ring species: There exist in the world several examples of species in which adjacent populations can interbreed, with a single exception. The Wikipedia article gives an adequate description. [2] The way this comes about is by the migration of one species into two separate areas. This path of migration will continue, and populations adjacent to each other will exchange genetic information often enough to remain genetically similar enough remain the same species. However, there is no direct gene flow between population on opposite ends of this chain. The only flow occurs through a long chain of populations, and this is slow even by evolutionary standards. The result is that the populations at either end cannot interbreed. What might happen if, say, a flood were to wipe out the intermediate forms: speciation. (3) Experimentation. On February 15, 1988, Richard Lenski began an experiment on E. Coli bacteria in which he subjected 12 nearly identical populations to the same environment.[1, page 232, paragraph 2] This means that the only separation that occured was geographical. Over the course of 20000 generations, the populations each acquired between 10 and 20 beneficial mutations.[1, page 236, paragraph 2] This seems insignificant only until considering that the only environmental factors available for the bacteria to adapt to were the limited amount of glucose, the presence of citrate, the buffer chemicals, the 'minimal-salts,' and the temperature, which the bacteria were already perfectly adapted to. This experiment shows that circumstances can be provided that will cause species to evolve. REFERENCES: [1] http://myxo.css.msu.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... As I know copy and paste arguments are quite popular with this topic, if Guitargod decides to do this, I ask that he respect the 8000 character limit. Thank you, and I await your rebuttal.