There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

Here's Pro's checklist for "the intention of this debate," which requires Con to provide: 1. "peer-reviewed studies supporting mutation as a major force that drove evolution." Check. http://www.pnas.org... http://www.pnas.org... http://www.pnas.org... 2. "a demonstration that mutation is able to create significant novel biological structures that allow for macro evolution to take place." Check. From the E. Coli study, "[W]e repeated the spread of beneficial mutations. Replicas were inoculated with cells that had been frozen at least 90 generations before a statistically significant adaptive event could be identified..." The result? "A novel advantageous mutation arose during the propagation of this replicate, and the frequency of a former inconspicuous allele increased significantly." Novel structures were created and these ALLOW for macro evolution to eventually occur. 3. "[Con's understanding of] the content of the studies well enough to defend its explanatory power in regards to the topic of this debate." Check. See my entire round 1 on peer reviewed journals. 4. "the full text of the papers." Check. All of my sources are full texts with URLs that end in .full 5. "a max of three studies." Check. http://www.pnas.org... http://www.pnas.org... http://www.pnas.org... 6. "larger scale/a more complex development [from mutations]...creation of a new structure" Check. See #2 on the checklist. #1-6 is Pro's entire list of requirements for Con, and I have fulfilled all of them. More importantly, I have fulfilled the resolution that there is enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution, and the PNAS confirms this. Now on to Pro's contentions: On the E. Coli study, Pro claims: "This is not necessarily a demonstration of mutation creating significant novel biological structures." My response: I was referring to the "Selective Sweeps Are Reproducible" section of the study where they found that "a novel advantageous mutation arose during the propagation of this replicate." Novel mutations are significant biological genetic structures. Then Pro continues: "Beneficial mutations were assumed, not directly observed." My response: Did you read this part of the study, Pro? "these experiments demonstrated that our method reliably identifies beneficial mutations with low and high fitness effects in growing E. coli cultures." Fitness is not an assumption; it's a measurement of the number of offspring that survive to reproductive age. The experiments showed, by fitness, that the beneficial mutation identification methods were accurate. Pro looks at my other PNAS articles and claims: "While both of these articles are related to the topic of the debate, they do not directly address it...they are review articles and thus their topic is very broad and references numerous studies. As I mentioned in the comment section I am looking for single case studies, ones that deal specifically with the creation of significant novel biological formations via mutation." My response: The topic of the debate is about whether or not there's evidence that shows mutation driving evolution, and the two titles of the studies are: a. Evolution in changing environments: Modifiers of mutation... b. The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution To me these directly address mutation driving evolution, despite them being "review" articles, because of the studies' conclusions from so much evidence supporting the resolution. Nothing in Pro's checklist from round 1 mentions that the studies cannot be review articles, or cannot reference numerous studies, so Pro's appeal to the comments section can be overlooked. Then Pro requests: "I would like to ask Con to provide two more case studies." My response: Pro, your checklist is very clear in round 1 that "Con can provide a max of three studies." So, to avoid violating the agreed rules of the debate, I will not, because I have already reached that maximum. I don't much appreciate Pro trying to expand Con's burden by requiring that the already peer reviewed full text studies, which satisfy Pro's round 1 checklist, be only single case studies,because the difference between a single case study and a multi case study has no impact on the resolution of evidence. Evidence isn't only single case studies; multi case studies affirm the resolution just as sufficiently as single case studies do. Pro, it's not fair to make a rule in round 1, max of 3 studies, and then request that Con violate the rule. Pro, have I shown enough evidence that mutation drove evolution with the items required on your checklist? Be honest.