Evolution is a Law of Nature

(First Rebuttal) "Evolution is a scientific law, plain and simple. Both the definition of macroevolution and the definition of a Law in Nature forbid such a resolution from being true. This is demonstrated by the following premises and the conclusions they lead to. Basically, my opponent said: macroevolution is a theory because it explains why something happens, and a law is simply something that happens. Additionally, it cannot be observed directly/replicated. First of all, the statement that distinguishes theories and laws by "what is there" and "why it is there" is oversimplified. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation, and a scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. What my opponent said as their definition was somewhat incorrect, since evolution is something that is observed, and is not an explanation of a law. I.E. The theory of heliocentricity (that we revolve around the sun, which is the center of our solar system), by the definition of my opponent, a natural law. But it is a theory. Additionally, a law is something that is observed. A theory is how the observed something came about. Evolution is observable, just like heliocentricity. Well, natural selection is the theoretical factor, while evolution is a natural law. Macroevolution is an explanation of how organisms are what they are today, not why. Natural selection is considerably "why" they are what they are today. "macroevolution has not been consistently observed, recreated, and recorded upon consistent circumstances, and cannot therefore be considered a law." Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... "EVEN IF scientific evidence pointed to evolution being the reason for modern creature being the way they are (it doesn't), we can't know for sure until we document a species changing into something completely new, i.e. a bird changing into a reptile." My opponent claims that direct observation is the only way to prove evolution's solidity, but (as we have mentioned before) sound scientific evidence on the genetic level can also be the basis for a law. The human chromosome #2 has been proven to be created from the fusion of two shorter chromosomes. This happened very early; most likely when chimps formed a new species outside of our common ancestor- ensuing DNA sequencing further validates this claim. Special creation and intelligent design both cannot explain this phenomenon, yet evolution demonstrates it perfectly. Even though we have yet to see a species "morph" into another one, we don't need to observe "a bird changing into a reptile" or anything similar to be able to conclude that evolution is a law and not a theory. http://www.pnas.org... http://www.indiana.edu... In conclusion, the evidence pointing towards macroevolution is in such accuracy and quantity that we must accept it as a fact. Good luck to my opponent.