Evolution is based on a Lie.

Wow, that was incoherent!Thanks anyway for that "response" Pro; I'm ever moved by random capital letters and series of chaotic words strung together.*The Resolution Is Still False*I maintain that evolution is NOT based on a lie, because it's based on sound evidence, and Pro has not given us any reason to ignore the sources I've provided, which definitively demonstrate that evolution is a fact.Pro also has a massive confusion between the origins of life and biodiversity, with *only* the latter being an explanation of evolution.From round 1, the definition of evolution, the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms, mentions nothing about how life ORIGINATED, only how it diversified.For this debate, I've taken a Con position that naturally defends evolution, so that is the only explanation I will defend in this debate; I won't defend abiogenesis, which explains the natural origin of life.But check the avatar, I will not let the claims assaulted on the natural origin of life go unanswered.Luckily, I debated abiogenesis already, and it has all the sources one needs to read and learn about the wonderfully explanatory fact of abiogenesis. http://www.debate.org...But again, the origin of life is not the focus of this debate, so Pro's assault on the natural origin of life should be reserved for a debate on abiogenesis and dismissed when voting.*Refuting Pro*Pro complains:"Con"s literature...fails to SHOW a creature OUTSIDE a microscope!"My response:The source I provided in round 1, listed as #2, was a study that observed speciation in hawthorn-->apple maggot fly, in the wild, as they speciated.To me, this SHOWS a creature outside of a microscope, and it shows that evolution is not based on a lie; speciation isn't a lie.Pro asserts:"Not a single living animated creature! NOT ONE! That includes the ENTIRETY of his sources!"My response:Are flies not creatures?What am I missing here?Also, I argue that my human chromosome 2 source, listed as #3 in round 1, involves humans and older apes, which are both animated creatures...Pro, did you actually read my sources?Pro emboldens his dishonesty:"Read it for yourself, Scan the document see if you CAN FIND the elusive creature"My response:Ok, I'm scanning, and, ah yes, there it is, right there in round 1, flies, humans and older apes.Hmm, I figured elusive creatures would be a little more...elusive.Also, none of my sources mention microbes or bacteria as Pro claimed.Pro indicates:"Notice the use of Con"s DECLARATION "sound fact" without the need to PRODUCE indisputable evidence, which alone IS FACT!"My response:I did provide you with indisputable evidence that humans evolved from older apes, you just ignored it.Here it is again.http://genome.cshlp.org...Humans' 2nd chromosome is a CONFIRMED fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. The uniquely older ape base pairs are CONFIRMED to be there, genes fuse all of the time, and it explains our divergence from chimps, who also descended from a common older ape ancestor.Confirmed, not suggested, or implied...confirmed.Pro gives a definition for the word "gene:""a unit of heredity which is transferred from A PARENT to offspring and is held to determine some characteristic of the offspring."My response:Yeah, so?Pro continues:"What PARENT are we talking about here Con?"My response:parent - an animal or plant from which younger ones are derived.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...You know, like, the thing that does the reproducing...the parent.Pro placates:"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. HAHAHAHAH! did I say gullible?"My response:Organisms inherit genes from their predecessors.Gene fusion occurs.Human's 2nd chromosome is a fused gene made of two ape chromosomes.Humans therefore inherited a fused gene from their predecessors, older apes, and this shows common descent.Pro adds:"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."My response:I don't know if I would say distant "cousin," but yeah, all life is genetically related... humans share about 44% of the same genes as fruit flies and about 26% of the same genes as yeast, which is a fungus.https://www.koshland-science-museum.org... Pro gets cosmological:"The Fe (iron) in your blood was at some point many, many billions of years ago in the center of a star that has since then ceased to exist."My response:Great, when we have our cosmology debate, you should try to bring that up, but since we're still here in old evolution town, we've gotta stay on track.I do agree though that the atoms in your body were once inside of a star...we are star stuff.*Chromosome 2 Defense*We might have something of a debate here, if only briefly.Pro asserts:"human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes-Crap, and more crap, opinions, conjecture no proof!human produce human, ape, produce ape, crap produces crap!"My response:The fusion was confirmed, but you didn't bother to read the source.Unique older ape DNA sequences, only found in two separate chromosomes in apes, are *precisely* what make up our 2nd chromosome. Check figure 6 of the chromosome 2 source:http://genome.cshlp.org...Pro mentions unsourced studies:"In 2002...in 2003...in 2005...RIchard Buggs"My response:Yeah, the source I provided was from 2012, and puts to bed all of your unsourced studies you claim to exist from the past.Oh and Dr. Richard Buggs's prediction on the human genome's similarity is as irrelevant as it is useless.Check the peer-reviewed CONFIRMED evidence from 2012, updated with studies that show the fusion site of chromosome 2 to have anywhere from 90%-100% identical to older ape base pairs.Pro obliviously asks:"Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth. Really?"My response:Yes, really!That's what I've been trying to tell you this whole time.Abiogenesis explains the natural origins of life on earth, not evolution, so check my debate on the former.*Conclusion*Pro has no idea what evolution is, and instead has constructed an incoherent, dishonest straw man, which, if Pro could figure it out, is a actually an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution.Pro, you wanna debate abiogenesis?If yes, set it up, send it to me, and you can unleash your chaotic wrath on me there...it just doesn't apply here Pro.For the contentions with human chromosome 2, I invite anyone to read the source that I have provided on this, because it's not too sciency and it's fascinatingly explanatory of what a human is genetically, a modern ape.