Evolution: Pick One

PRO, Thank you for this debate. [CLARIFICATION]- I defined myth as "an invented concept." In the context of this debate, invented does mean something that is false or not proved. {Intro} (1) Also to note: My opponent is Pro and by that he is supporting my statement and I as Con disapprove. I add this because it is the other way around. I seek to clarify this so readers do not get that confused. (2) I state that my space is short so I do not drop anything, it will be addressed later. [WARRANT]- As anyone can research and seek, Macro evolution is not witnessed by the human eye. Meaning, it is not completely observed in nature. By only use of observance and not estimations, One can conclude that Macro evolution is nothing more than a modern invented concept. [Preliminary Argument]- Let's really look at this proposition by my opponent. He states that one of the following is in fact false.(1) Stabilizing selection has not occurred in all populations, in all physical respects, since the beginning of life.(2) There is no genetic barrier which prevents the accumulation of so many MiE changes that MaE is achieved.(3) The Earth is too young for MiE changes to have accumulated to macro scale.(4) MaE has not occurred.We can agree that (1) is true as my opponent said, because we have witnessed these instances of selection in populations. We do have a reason to believe that (2) is true. MiE and MaE have much discussion left in this topic. All the supporting information also leans toward other possibilities and leaving (2) as being incorrect. Here you are at assumption that two similar-appearing effects are caused by the same thing. So is (3) true? My opponent states in proposition (3) that the Earth is too young for MiE to have accumulated enough changes to cause MaE. I am confused here. Is my opponent stating that MaE has never occurred yet on earth? Thus, proposition (4) can not be verified at all and is still just a proposed concept which in fact can be viewed as a myth. Until He rebuts this I must hold off from any further explanation. Let's move on... Common Descent My opponent suspects that if CD is true, then MaE has obviously happened on a massive scale. I ask why? When there are other explanations that fit the same evidence. It appears that the "evidence" for Common Descent can also be used to support competing hypotheses like convergence and Common Design or I.D. theory. So in order for Common Descent to separate itself from Common Design/I.D. and convergence it needs to explain the differences.(Wobbling Stability) To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And they suspect we evolved from some non-human primate. My opponent says, "It is not required to be established to an absolute certainty to be regarded as true." Though no one has "seen" the sort of "evolution" required in the current naturalistic theories of evolution. When we take the time to research these claims, they always seem to unravel. Random mutation and natural selection have been observed an what it is capable of, and it's not anything like what is proposed by Naturalistic or Darwinist theories. What's the catch? Rather than have "God" offered as an alternative theory to explain certain phenomena that can't be explained without recourse to mind. "God" here is simply being offered as an entity that possesses the property the physical forces and laws lack that the obvious design manifested by the code in dna requires according to the universal observation of mankind. Aside from being false, there is no need to make a example contrary to predictions actually made by MaE because it is merely a belief and not empirical. [Contentions]- (1) Speciation only occurs at the species taxon level. Macro Evolution is the mechanism by which an original taxon may morph enough to result in newly descendant phyla or classes. In order for large change to occur, many successive steps are required. The term macro evolution was coined with its definition including speciation. Speciation typically requires numerous mutations and modification to happen before a population is so distinguished from other populations within the species that a new subspecies is generated. This being so, any evolution that occurs is always micro evolution because change originates with the scrambling of genes and alleles at a molecular level. However, there are millions of organisms presently existing and accounted for that are unicellular or so primitive that they represent organisms in clades that are found in higher taxa. These species typically do not evolve in that they are essentially highly conserved. If evolution occurred at these higher taxa levels, then all such species within those clades would be extinct. Speciation is observable, but not at all with these primitive life forms. This conflicts with evolutionary gradualism which is a required prediction. Speciation at these higher taxa levels, or macro evolution, is one of the most classic arguments ever presented by Creationists, and no evolutionist has ever been able to dispose of the challenge. Here’s a scientific problem to solve: Species of Protista, schizomycophyta, myxomycophtya, eumycophyta, Lichenes, protozoa, Mesozoa, Euglenophyta, Pyrrophyta, Chrysophyta, Phaeophyta, Choanoflagellates, Sarcodina, Ciliophora, Mastigophora, Amoeba, Ctenophora, cnidaria, Myxozoa, Acoelomata, bacteria, are all examples of HIGH TAXA. Most of them are single-celled organisms. Species within these classifications do not evolve. Species within these classifications remain the same species. Necessary Condition: Show occurrence of speciation for any of the sufficient condition above^? 2) Horizontal evolution/VERTICAL evolution. Horizontal evolution is not just micro evolution only, but it is all the variations and adaptations that take place within a species, genus, or family. What is important to note is that the variations are moving sideways, laterally. For example, there might be an infinite possible number of breeds of dogs, or hybrids of any particular life form. But a domestic dog is still just that. In this instance very little, if any, complexity is gained or lost. Variations occur, adaptations happen, even speciation takes place. But, there is no greater increase in information or complexity. When you go up and down vertically, we are talking about increasing and decreasing complexity from primitive single-celled life forms to today’s modern complex species. The macro evolution argument is about showing evidence of the vertical evolution taking place. Bacteria continuously adapt into new strains, but all the changes are horizontal. {TO CLOSE}- Darwin's theory of evolution has so many flaws in it that to believe the theory is correct takes an immense amount of faith and this faith is nothing more than myth.Thanks to my opponent. =SOURCES= http://www.grisda.org... http://www.mattox.com... http://plato.stanford.edu...http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...http://jcs.biologists.org.... http://btc.montana.edu...http://www.nybiodiversity.org...http://creationwiki.org...