Evolution is scientific.

As I have very little time to post this argument, I will keep it very short. First I would like to point out that Pro changes his definition of "species" multiple times in his last argument. First Pro says that Monkeys and Apes are a different species ,but they are both primates. Later Pro says that a Chihuahua is not a new species as it is still a dog. Here you can easily see that Pro is changing his definition to argue his point. On the topic of natural selection Pro completely ignores my definition of natural selection from a good source. This source is not for creationism. It is from a Webster's dictionary! Yet he defies the definition. The definition clearly states that natural selection is "a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success.....that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities". This is very clear! Natural selection is the survival of perpetual genes. How can this be "the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution"? So Pro is saying that natural selection, a process that I have shown to not support evolution in any way, is the cornerstone for evolution. Evolution has no cornerstone, and without one, the whole theory comes tumbling down. Pro then states that "Con simply manipulated the term but this description is not accurate or supported". I did no such thing! If you read the definition of natural selection you would see that I did not "manipulate the term" and I definitely "supported" it! I supported it with an accepted definition from a reliable source. This debate has been mostly about whether or not macroevolution is observable. I will address this now. Pro admits that macroevolution requires the gaining of information: "Macroevolution does not refer to utilizing qualities that were already present, but rather the evolution of new traits in order" This has NEVER been observed! Pro says "scientists have already observed the genetic mutation of species including in cockroaches, fish, lizards and other examples I mentioned in R1. This rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor" Another quote from Pro's argument..."genetics suggest no reason it should not be true on a large scale" In both of these quotes Pro is basically saying that over a long period of micro evolution(adaptations) macroevolution will happen. This is not true. Microevolution has been observed. Macroevolution has not. Pro says "cockroach adapting to be immune to certain pesticides. Right there we see that the cockroach has gained information". Adapt: " to make fit (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modification"[1] They are using what they have for a "new use". This is NOT gaining information. The cockroaches are not gaining information in there DNA. Here is an example of what is happening: Imagine you put 100 people on a small island infested with a curtain kind of poisonous snake. They are everywhere, and there is no way to ovoid being bitten. Now, 2 of the 100 people, 1 man and 1 female are immune to this snakes venom. The other 98 will soon die, but the 2 that are immune to the poison will live and reproduce. In 200 years the island will be populated with many people, but all of them will be immune to this poison because they all came from the same parents who were immune. Now imagine these people are roaches that reproduce and die way quicker than humans, and instead of snakes you have pesticides. Fairly soon, you would end up with an entire population of immune roaches as the roaches that were not immune died out and were unable to reproduce. Therefore the only example Pro gave of the gaining of information clearly does not gain information. My opponent has not shown any evidence of the gaining of information. And as he says "Macroevolution does not refer to utilizing qualities that were already present, but rather the evolution of new traits" Pro has not given any evidence that shows the gaining of "new traits". Without this evidence of observation, Pro has no case. Thanks for the debate. Vote Con. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...