The "deteriorating process" can explain all inferred instances of the "compounding process."

Before beginning this debate, it is important to know some definitions. Degenerative process (Or deteriorating) - process of loss of genetic information [1] Compounding process - process of gain of genetic information [2] You will not see these definitions, or terms for that matter, in any textbook I know about. However, from the following I will show you where they come from. Microevolution - changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia, can get a lot of material wrong, due to the nature of how it is constructed, which is viewer edits. I want the voter to keep in mind that this source cannot affect my sources as the Con will accept to this definition. Wikipedia has this definition in good wording as the people who seem to edit these evolution, or common descent, wikis seem to know the subject material often times. Macroevolution - change that occurs on a sale of separated gene pools http://en.wikipedia.org... Advocates of common descent wish to define the terms like the above two with only slight variations. However, from the observed event of speciation, I wish to show we should use different terms. I make the following postulate from all observed cases of speciation. Postulate: All instances of speciation are caused by the degeneration of biological information. That is to say, with the definition earlier [1], all cases of speciation are caused by the degenerative process. This postulate is what the debate is about. All instances of speciation are capable of being explained by the degenerative process which means the compounding process is not required. Now it becomes apparent to define Biological information, a not so easy task. Biological information is best generically defined by functions, not usefulness. [3] It is best define by functions because usefulness changes from environment to environment. It is also important to note that living things have two characteristics. Specificity and complexity. These characteristics cannot be compromised for more information. Specificity is pertaining to everything in the right place and complexity is the complexity of what is in place. These are broad definitions and may be refined later. They are only necessary to note in a few cases. Basically, the loss of these characteristics shows the loss of functions at smaller levels. Now that I have explained the debate, the rules. First round is acceptance. Fifth round only reestablishment and counter arguments. No new arguments may be presented. This is pretty standard. Burden of proof is on the Con more so then Pro. It will be way easier to disprove, due to the necessity of only needing one case, then to prove the postulate. Occam's razor fits with this burden of proof. Any disagreements must be mentioned in the comments section before accepting. You should generally agree with my definitions. Note that some debate may lie in the definition of biological information, but too much debate on it will distract from the concept. Also, I beforehand apologize for spelling mistakes on my part. My keyboard seems to be unresponsive at times.