Does the evolution model offer sufficient explanation for the diversity of life forms

Con states he is using speciation in the sense of one species evolving into another. Again, if this is what Con means by macroevolution, then he is wrong. As this has been observed [1]. Con states he doesn’t recall claiming that scientists don’t accept mutations as an explanation for the diversity of life. Despite saying in round 2 “Does mutations occur, and do they change animals, certainly, but you will see that even evolution scientists do not believe this is the answer to diversity of life forms”. Then he claims there are two different camps of evolutionary theory. He gives no technical names for these camps nor any sources, but I believe he is referring to the Lamarckian and Darwinian camps of evolutionary thought. If this is true, then his point is moot, as Lamarckism is dead [2]. Nonetheless, even if we were to assume Lamarckism (or whatever else Con might be referencing) is alive and well, this doesn’t mean anything. Scientists may disagree on specific points of evolution, but this doesn’t entail they disagree that macroevolution happened. Con also reiterates that natural selection isn’t sufficient for macroevolution. Con has misunderstood what I have said. Natural selection basically states those who are better adapted to an environment are more likely to survive and have children. Nobody is claiming it will add information, that is the job of mutations. Natural selection does produce negatively in the sense that those who cannot survive in an environment will die off. I never claimed otherwise, nor has Con’s quote. I don’t exactly know why Con is focusing on natural selection, as even he stated evolution is much more than natural selection. To quote Berkley “Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.” [3]. Claiming natural selection isn’t sufficient to explain a macro event is a category error and does nothing to prove Con’s point. Giraffes My opponent claims the giraffe’s neck proves macroevolution to be false, as there’s an interdependence on the neck and its circulatory system. However, just because there presently exists co-dependency, doesn’t mean there always has been co-dependency. As Mark Isaak writes [4] “Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth. “ So the giraffe neck fails to refute evolution. Entailment Con argues that there are limitations. He doesn’t explain why or how the limitations work, he just gives examples of the limitations of selective breeding. The problem is, selective breeding is very different from evolution by mutation and natural selection. Breeding has an end goal and masters to direct it, which is not so with evolution. Using an example with the milk of the cow: “People breed cows to make lots of milk, without caring a lot about nutrients in the milk. In the wild, as long as the cow can produce enough milk for her calf, the cows with the most nutritious milk are more likely to have offspring that will survive. Also, holding a lot more milk in her udder inhibits the movement of the cow, which in nature would make it harder for her to survive.” [5] As the source also says “These differences are caused by people having only one interest in mind”. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that because there are limitations in one area of evolution, that it’ll also be true in all areas of evolution. Lastly, Con’s counter analogy doesn’t really make sense. He states “It would be the equivalent of deducing you can make a quarter, if you only gather enough nickels.” But, microevolution involves small minute changes, not groups of changes all at once. My opponent fails to take into account that evolution in the wild and selective breeding are two different things. Furthermore, he hasn’t explained exactly how these proposed limitations work in the first place.The argument remains. Fossil Record & ERVs My opponent ignores these contentions. I extend them. Sources ************************************** [1] https://web.archive.org... [2] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...“His mechanism of evolution remained a popular alternative to Darwinian selection until the beginning of the 20th century” [3] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [4] http://www.talkorigins.org... [5] http://necsi.edu...