Resolution: Evolution is an observed fact

I am absolutely avoiding the causal factors. As I clearly stated in the comments to your profile, "evolution" is seperate from "the theory of evolution by natural selection". This debate is not about natural selection. It is about evolution. "yah. evolution as in the relation of species to one another (both in appearance and genetically), and the idea that there is genetic change over time. the historical evidence is strong and we have actually observed this genetic change in the case of bacteria. natural selection is the part that is theory, meant to give an account of how the changes lead to the many difference species we observe today." -http://www.debate.org... That is what I am advocating and what I have always advocated. Evolution is defined simply- genetic change over time. Natural selection is a proposed method of explaining why and how this change occurs, however THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT- not any scientific theory or law. What I am advocating makes no predictions and is not meant to explain anything. It is simply the observed fact (as mentioned in the many examples I gave) that organisms experience genetic change over time and that such changes can be passed on in various ways to offspring. Even granting CON's assertion that the change[s] must be inherited, the E. coli study I mentioned already fulfills this burden, as do the many documented cases of spontaneous polyploidy which my opponent apparently chooses to ignore. http://www.cazv.cz... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... http://web.mac.com... http://www.plantbiology.msu.edu...(2).pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.cababstractsplus.org... etc As for the E. coli study: "I do not doubt the studies reliability, however all it shows is that a confirmed Phenotypic trait was found in a new generation. It does not show how that E coli (C+) came into being. In this example the RNA translation must be observed and the new bacterium captured. This stays true to the 'inherited' definition of evolution." While it's certainly possible (though unlikely) that the gene to metabolize citrate was already present in the original sample, but the fact that it was unexpressed until over 30,000 generations had passed still implies that some evolution took place. Transcription is initiated by genetic instruction, a so called "promoter" sequence that turns genes on and off by being activated or inactivated. Thus, in order for the citrate gene to be activated, some OTHER gene must have experienced a mutation whereby it turned on the promoter or allowed it to be turned on. Most genes, in fact, modulate the activity of other genes. So either way, a genetic change led to a new ability. It doesn't particularly matter which gene was changed. Furthermore, I have no idea what CON is on about when he says the new bacterium needs to be "captured" as it was grown in a petrie dish in a lab under extremely controlled conditions. Furthermore, its genome has been sequenced and its clear that it was descended from the earlier specimens. If he has some other point to make I ask that he make it more clearly because I am extremely confused about what he is trying to say here. As for antibiotic resistance, CON refutes this by reference to "virions" which are a completely unrelated topic as they are wholly unaffected by antibiotics. [1][2] While anti-viral medications do exist, that is not what I am referring to. Bacteria which previously were susceptible to antibiotics are now resistant to them. This is genetic change over time. Also note that CON completely ignored my discussion of ring species as an example of genetic change. Not only has he failed to address my arguments, but he seems to have no idea what my arguments are. Evolution is an observed fact- the genetic composition of a species changes over time. Natural selection is a theory meant to explain how and why those changes take place (and not what this debate is about). CON's effots to equivocate them aside, he has yet to make a case for any real issue with my evidence. 1. http://www.drgreene.com... 2. http://www.drreddy.com...