Evolution is scientific.

My opponent's lone contention is that evolution has not been observed at the macro level. First of all, scientists have already observed the genetic mutation of species including in cockroaches, fish, lizards and other examples I mentioned in R1. This rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. As I said, after a significant number of genetic mutations (WHICH WE HAVE OBSERVED FIRST HAND), the new adaptation of the species would indeed be enough to be considered a separate species. Additionally, evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes, and the concept of macorevolution itself makes that nearly impossible. Still, we are able to make inferences about things we have not observed first hand such as the existence of dinosaurs. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc. As I pointed out in the last round, consistency with the fossil record is paramount and the predictions regarding macroevolution have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming [1]. Moreover, we have indeed observed the origin of entire new species both in the laboratory and in the wild [2]. Evolution has been proven in this way which negates Con's entire case lol. For scientific evidence of observed instances of speciation, check here [3]. What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution [4]. But let's get back to speciation. Since speciation - the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise - has been proven (observed many times over), the evolutionist will concede to macorevolution being true. A creationist on the other hand will argue that the changes are limited to an organism's kind. However, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another is hands down not supported by the evidence, and Con hasn't introduced evidence to prove otherwise. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Anyone who understands genetics -- specifically the genetic scientists -- agree that genetics suggest no reason it should not be true on a large scale [4]. Con is not a geneticist or a scientist and therefore we have no reason to accept his implication that he is correct over the scientists who agree that this is not only possible but probable. Evolution has actually been seen, documented and observed. Natural selection is evidenced and largely supported, even by creationists. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that to prevent extinction, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. This has been proven and observed many times over. Yet another example is the evolution of one species to another observed blatantly [5] which many scientists have noted completely NEGATES Con's ignorant misconception that evolution at the macro level has not been observed. Richard Lenski from MSU showed that an unselected mutation could fix in a population and then later combine with a second mutation to produce a new trait that can be selected for [6]. In short, I have completely negated Con's supposition that evolution has not been observed. I have given evidence indicating that evolution at the micro and macro level has been predicted, tested and observed. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of this noted by over 95% of the entire scientific community at large (including the religious ones). On the contrary you'll notice that Con has completely dodged and avoided any request to present one shred of evidence for creationism, or provide one iota of proof or indication that any aspect of the scientific method -- the method we use to understand reality -- can be applied to creationism. So again, we have seen source after source providing evidence in favor of hypothesized, tested, observed and predicted evolution accepted by virtually every scientist in the field... and absolutely zero evidence in favor of the theory of creationism. Hmm. This is a toughie. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg. 1992. "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220 [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] http://atheism.about.com... [5] http://futurismic.com... [6] http://scienceblogs.com...