Macro Evolution isn't a fact it's fiction

Point 1. My opponent doesn't care about a single evolutionary scientist because he has deemed them automatically 'wrong'. The fact I engage with creationist literature is testament to the fact I have no closed myself off from new arguments. Points 2. You can re-modified your point, but I still feel your language is unjustified. The idea of 'Stellar Evolution' and 'Organic Evolution' are ideas never used in contemporary scientific literature, no credible scientist applied the theory of Natural Selection to chemicals or stars. The theory of Darwinian Natural Selection specifically targets animals that are able to re-produce and can have genetic mutations. I don't think it is reasonable to defend 'Stellar Evolution' because I don't think anyone believes that evolutionary biologists accept this. Darwinian models of the origin of species are specifically related to the origin of species and not stars or planets. My objections. Why are we using these terms? I see no good reason to divide evolutionary theory into macro and micro so why would I be willing to accept Stellar evolution? I wouldn't, nor would all those experts, because what you think the experts do and what they actually do is so different that I think you are surrounding yourself with too much creationist jargon. The creationist jargon and not their actual scientific research makes this debate so difficult, you intend to establish barriers in the evolutionary theory, with words like 'micro and macro', yet these are just not sufficient on their own and I have challenged you on this. Point 3. Of course you can tell a lot from fossils. In my source, the Scientific American, it breaks down the bone structure of male and female animals. Clearly Pelvis bones are different due to different functions in the animal. A Pelvis bone structure with an "angled bony arch" is a females due to birth canals and their female genitals. Again, you're using Kent Hovind level science to dismiss what could have been shown with one simple click of the button or class in evolutionary biology. Yet, I have a strange feeling you'd also dismiss colleges classes dedicated to educating people on the Darwinian Theory. Point 4. We still see contentious terminology. Evidence. I would add to the above, that the 'certain genotype characteristics' are the result of mutations on the genetic level which occur during reproduction. My analogy is usually the following. We have 4 rabbits, two couples and they both have 1 bunny rabbit each. I pick rabbits because they are cute, but my point can be anything organism. Now one rabbit has a genetic mutation which causes a 1cm ear growth on both sides. This almost unnoticeable adaptation, allows the rabbit to hear just slightly better than his counterpart who has no obvious or beneficial mutations which we can see. In the process of looking for food, the longer eared rabbit hears a fox approaching towards the area that both rabbits inhabit. It naturally darts away and avoids harm, while his unfortunate shorter eared rabbit is eaten instead. The longer eared rabbit progresses and spreads its genes as it survives and has a higher probability of survival. It spreads throughout the population till small eared rabbits are non existent. This is natural selection as simply as I can put it. It is all hypothetical of course and I would not expect you to accept this as evidence. My evidence for this process is the Richard Lenski experiment in which we observe- . Beneficial mutations . Adaption to the environment and progressive efficiency due to mutations. . A struggle and passing on of these mutations to others. . Struggle for survival among the organisms. . Natural selection being the driving force of adaptation and progression. . Accumulated evolutionary traits being preserved. The beneficial mutations as seen in the Dr. Richard Lenski experiments. Dr. Richard Lenski, is a Distinguished Professor from Michigan University, who has conducted a 25 year experiment on E. Coli. The LTEE experiments as I believe they are called. For me these experiments are a beautiful example of the power of natural selection and evolution in action. While men and women like Lenski spend their lives producing evidence for evolution as I shall show, creationists ignore their work and tend to attempt to refute their evidence in broad sweeping claims, which do not stand up to empirical criticism especially when most of these refutations are ad hoc remarks. The experiment of Dr. Lenski is an example of mutations which proved beneficial to the E. Coli. 2013 is the anniversary of the experiments marking 25 years of research. With the life span and amount of bacteria, as Lenski states ' There is a lot of opportunity for evolution'. Dr. Lenski conducted an experiment in which he got 12 flasks of E. Coli all identical and infected each one with a glucose-rich broth. As expected the E. Coli would feed off the broth and then skyrocket in populations and then level off. Each day Lenski and his highly trained team would take a small sample from each flask and then infect a brand new flask with a small portion of the previous E. Coli. Basically moving the 12 tribes from 12 old flasks to 12 new flasks, with care not to infect any of them by an outside source. He would then repeat the process and give them the glucose rich-broth. As you can see the generations of E. Coli would live and die, a lot faster than humans or other animals, making them perfect for observing whether beneficial mutations are kept and preserved over time. As natural selection would predict. As predicted over 20 years of experimenting, 7,000 flasks and 45,000 generations had passed. For human equivalent it would roughly be a million years to the time of Homo rectus. Obviously Dr. Lenski could check if any of the flasks had contaminated any other flask, by use of ARA- and ARA+, but that is not important right now. Now as Darwinian evolution would predict, if a single mutation arose which would exploit the broth and perhaps take more nutrients in, then natural selection would obviously select the individual mutation and spread it throughout the population. Word for word natural selection in process if observed. What did the scientists observe? Exactly that, in fact each tribe had harnessed a mutation and were able to better live off the broth but in separate ways. By Freezing 'fossil' forms of the earlier generations Lenski was literally able to preserve remnants of the older E. Coli. By unfreezing and mixing the E. Coli from past and present they could calculate and observe the effectiveness of the two lineages. As predicted the modern E. Coli had been able to take in far more broth than the older one. In looking at their 12 tribes they noticed something amazing, all tribes had been able to produce and preserve mutations which helped them in taking in the broth. Not to mention each tribe in a hyperbola expression on a mathematical graph increased in size and productivity. Now as any scientist could tell you, there are many different mutations to make the body of the E. Coli bigger. More impressively the odds of two separate flasks following the exact path of each other to increase in size is far more improbable. In ARA+1 and ARA-1 each in 20,000 generations had followed the exact same evolutionary path and 59 genes had changed their expression. Now if this was by change then it would be so improbable, but as natural selection is not chance but specific picking of mutations then this is just an improbable event not an event so improbable it could never happen. On the creationist view this cannot happen. This is gradual culmination natural selection.