Evolution is a scientific fact.

In regards to your second paragraph, I cannot tell you how deeply saddened I am that I am unable to impress you. Also, it will not be necessary for you to imagine any additional arguments, the arguments that I present will prove to be sufficient. Now, on to the definitions. ===================== Revision of definitions ===================== Evolution: My opponent has so graciously provided us with an alternative definition, and I will explain exactly why such an absurdly broad understanding of the term does not allow for critical study. My opponent, as well as the scientific community, would like you to accept a wildly broad definition of evolution. He states, "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. " This definition is unrealistic. First, if evolution is ‘merely change', there is no room for discussion; certainly the negative cannot be so audacious to suggest that change doesn't exist. The reason my opponent, and the scientific community, promotes such an arbitrary definition of the theory, is because it completely removes their burden of proof. We clearly need a more precise definition. For this reason we will focus on evolution as the process by which all living creatures have evolved from a single organism. (changing species and kingdoms) Scientific Fact: I will concede to your definition in order to use my character limit on more valuable points. The Arguments: I will go about this explanation by answering the following questions; what is speciation and who wants to know? What does the evidence prove about speciation? What is missing? What is speciation and who wants to know? Speciation is the process of changing from one species to another but… Remember how I told you that my opponent wanted to broaden the definition of evolution to such an extent that it removed his burden of proof? Well he, along with many members of the scientific community, will attempt to do the same thing with speciation. Keep in mind that the term 'species' has many interpretations and the Pro will try to stretch the definition of speciation so far that what he ends up proving is irrelevant to the argument. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at his sources and what they actually say. Fortunately I don't need to reference any additional sources, the ones he provided confirm everything I mentioned. "A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community…There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. ". .. " What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. The biological species concept has been very successful as a theoretical model for explaining species differences among vertebrates and some groups of arthropods. This can lead us to glibly assert its universal applicability, despite its irrelevance to many groups. " [6]. .. I will go on to show many specific examples of this abuse of definition. Before I get into the specific 'examples' of 'speciation' mentioned, let's look at what my opponent's sources actually concede about speciation. This part is awesome. "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation. " [6] Did one of his sources just concede that the observed speciation events failed to produce speciation? Hummm. .. let's see if any of his other sources confirm this blatant lack of evidence. .. "In fact, then, both biologists and paleontologists must infer what happens, and it is very difficult to sort out where fact ends and where interpretation begins. " [5] Yah that one was good, but wait until you read the next one. "Notice that since biologists have not seen a speciation event that everyone would believe, biologists are driven to theory-heavy models of speciation, rather than a rich store of observational evidence. " [5] Holy S-word, did another one of my opponent's sources just say that biologists have never seen speciation? There is no rich store of observational data? Well that is just flabbergasting. Ok ok, so my opponent's sources concede that they haven't actually seen speciation and there isn't actually any observational data. .. .but hey, they have done some experiments! After all, you can't have a good theory without experiments. Let's take a look at the experiments. Unfortunately, due to my character limit, I am unable to reference each of these experiments individually. [6] If any readers have time take a look at every single experiment and observation available to us, so that there can be no doubt about the conclusions (or lack thereof) that we find. So, experiments exist, what do they prove? Well…they certainly prove conclusively that a primrose (flower) can turn into more primroses, flies can turn into more flies, and worms can turn into more worms, etc. But these proofs are absolutely irrelevant to the argument without providing an answer to the theory that all life has existed in the same kingdoms as we observe them in today, they may have adapted or changed within that kingdom to form many species, yet in no circumstances has any life ever mutated or ‘evolved' from one kingdom to the other. Why are the experiments so broad? They use the broadest of all speciation definitions. Note my opponent's source, "So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. " [5] This is why the experts have conceded that speciation has not actually ever been observed, and cannot be observed without more specific studies that do not use the BSC standard. So where are the other studies? Where are the studies using alternative definitions of speciation? Why are there no examples of animals going through speciation? As I, and my opponents sources, have already asserted: These studies simply do not exist. And finally we address the question: What is missing? Well many things, primarily: evidence. As I have already explained, all the BSC evidence is basically BS. Evidence from other standards is required, evidence that can explicitly disprove the claim that all life originated in the biological kingdoms we observe today and have adapted within those kingdoms, but in no instances has any organism crossed over from one kingdom to the other. i. e. a plant has never become an animal, a whale has never become a monkey, etc. I have a suggestion of how this evidence can be provided, and if my opponent wishes to perform this experiment I will gladly give him an extension on his rebuttal. Experiment: Take a male flower, preferably the experimentally preferred primrose, and isolate it from the female primrose, then subject it to naked women. If the primrose develops a human penis, you will have observational data, by the strictest standards, that speciation exists. In conclusion: At the end of the day the most important words come from my opponent when his experts are forced to admit that "biologists have not seen a speciation event" [5] and that the experiments "failed to produce speciation. " [6] You may say that you believe in evolution, but you may not say that it is a scientific fact. If you choose to believe in evolution you must believe in it with the same amount of faith as the creationist, for the observations that you hold to so dearly are little more than the Shroud of Turin or the image of the Virgin