Darwinism, Evolution by Natural Selection, and Athiesm is False and Un-scientific

Pro contends that my points on evolution are irrelevant. However I've explained how evolution is intrinsic to this debate per the resolution. Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Natural Selection is the process in nature by which (according to Darwin) only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic material to succeeding generations, while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. It is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. It's true that Darwin's original theory of Natural Selection missed several points, such as the nature of the genetic material involved and the origin of life. However "Darwin's theory has been amended with answers to these and many other important questions. Darwin's amended theory is called The Modern Synthesis, and includes modern genetics, more advanced ecology and biogeography (fields which Darwin helped to pioneer), better paleontology, and abiogenesis (generation of life from non-life). This is the form of evolution is currently regarded as the most accurate, and is currently adequate in explaining all data observed to date" [1]. Pro contends that because we cannot observe macroevolution in our lifetime, it therefore does not qualify as science. This is patently false. There are many things we cannot observe yet accept as scientifically accurate, specifically as it pertains to the universe and our solar system. We rely on mathematical formulas and other data to make assumptions we cannot observe [2]. Similarly, macroevolution withstands the scrutiny of the scientific method, and thus we should accept it as scientifically valid until it is disproven via similar scientific scrutiny. Re: Evolution is Parsimonious Pro commits the fallacy presented by Occam's razor in his argument [3]. That is the assumption that the simplest argument is the correct one, and that no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. His supposition that the origins of life and the universe "must be God" is unsupported. There is no evidence to verify this other than the assumption that it should simply be understood and accepted as credible which is fallacious. Pro has not (can not) present tests or evidence to confirm this assertion. Re: Evolution is Useful According to one biochemist, "God is an unnecessary assumption in explaining the origin and diversity of life. Back in Darwin's day, God was a necessary assumption, since nobody knew enough about biochemistry to justify a hypothesis for the origin of life. Now, however, we have those hypotheses, and that makes God an unnecessary assumption. There are things that would make God a necessary assumption - for example if we found evidence of ancient organisms interacting with humans (like a dinosaur fossil with spearheads stuck in the side of it). That would mean that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and could not be explained by evolutionary theory (but could fit into either a 'god did it' or 'people traveled back in time and hunted dinosaurs like in Land of the Lost' hypothesis. Of course, we have hundreds of thousands of fossils, and none of them show such interaction, so the likelihood of finding one now is very low" [4]. Re: Testing Evolution & Repeated Experiments My opponent claims that fossils don't count as a test because fossils = evidence. But the test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the fossil record and it does. In the last round, I sourced information about how evolution has been tested on lizards and fish (sources #8 and #9) as well. Pro accepts the reality of microevolution; for example cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species? My opponent has dropped this argument because it affirms Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and thus negates the resolution. Microevolution is real as observed all over nature. One study researching microevolution in swans concludes that the same logic can be extended to verify macroevolution as well [5]. As with the solar system, it's often impossible to witness something over the course of one person's lifetime. However data can be observed and analyzed to warrant likely assumptions. Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. "Science Provides Evidence for the unobservable via inference. The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years" [6]. * CONCLUSION PART 2 * Atheism describes the absence of belief in the existence of deities. As science continues to explain more about how the universe works, there is less need for a "God of the gaps." In order to prove that atheism is unscientific, Pro will have to use the scientific method or some other scientific criteria to explain why atheism does not qualify. But in science, we can't affirmatively know or assert something until we've empirically proven it. Without any affirmative scientific proof that God DOES exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism ("I don't know because I don't have any data"). Agnosticism = I don't know if God exists, while Atheism = I don't believe that God exists. Without any data FOR God, there is no reason to believe IN God -- thus atheism is a logical position. At the very least, Pro hasn't proven that it's an unscientific position. [1] http://darwinwasright.org... [2] http://undsci.berkeley.edu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://answers.yahoo.com... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://www.talkorigins.org...