Macro-evoluton is valid

evolution =/= abiogenesisEvolution is a nice theory, but you must explain where it comes from. That is all I'm asking, and you've yet to show me how it is irrelevant to this discussion.What those links say is that life may have travelled to Earth via meteorites. me·te·or·ite noun plural noun: meteorites a meteor that survives its passage through the earth's atmosphere such that part of it strikes the ground. More than 90 percent of meteorites are of rock, while the remainder consist wholly or partly of iron and nickel. Ninety percent rock? Huh...interesting. I never said life arose from the rock itself. What I did say is we came from rocks, which secularists believe had a part to play in our evolution. Evolution teaches that we came from rocks, while not in whole at least in part.abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis; evolution is a scientific theory.I honestly don't care about Abiogenesis or whatever theory you want to use. I want you to show me how life could ever arise by natural process, which you haven't done.Argument 1As already stated, we know life can't arise spontaneously from nonlife. Why should we assume it can arise at all from nonlife? We simply don't observe life arising by natural process.Argument 2To quote from my last argument:It is important to note that E. coli already had the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among many other required factors). The genetic changes here are indeed complex, but the key event here involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter.I feel as though this answers all of the questions you brought up.As for “downhill mutations,” I took that to mean deleterious mutations. It does not make any sense at all for “downhill mutations” to mean neutral mutations. Once again Con, your exceptionally sloppy wording is your downfall.I said:"Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill. (with new information.)" I don't see how you could possibly misunderstand this. I explicitly stated that horizontal mutations involve no new information. There is absolutely nothing sloppy about this. As I went on to say, there was a case in which I said the down-hill mutations dominated the common mutations. When I said this, I simply meant that the mutations were not uphill. I made note of this 'mistake,' although the only fault is in the interpretation. If you can only move neutrally or down, you'll still be going downhill eventually. Never will you go up, or stay the same, with the options of neutral or down.No, you losing an arm doesn’t work as an analogy, because mutations are the result from a combination of genes via sexual (or even asexual) reproduction. Losing an arm because you had it cut off, is not being talked about with mutations.Analogy noun a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies" a correspondence or partial similarity. "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia" a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature" If I made an analogy of a literal mutation as "the result from a combination of genes via sexual (or even asexual) reproduction," it wouldn't be an analogy anymore. It would just be a hypothetical scenario. The entire point of an analogy is that it takes the essentials and it explains it using another form. The loss of an arm represents the loss of information, or a deleterious/downhill mutation. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Lamarckian evolution has been falsified.Now you're just arguing to argue. I've already stated I agree with this statement. I agree science has falsified Lamarckian evolution long ago. This doesn't change the fact that I've still heard evolutionists use it.Argument 3I cannot read this one.For the citation being referred to here, please see the comments section. The item I cited is a book. As such, one way to get this item is to buy it and read it. It's in my library.This one I was able to read and I’m already finding blatant holes in Con’s argumentThe item referred to is cited in the comments.It actually gives evidence as to why certain species (H Erectus) are fully bipedal or why certain species (A. Africanus) is partly bipedal with arboreal capabilities as well.The primary purpose of this citation was to address the point of the inner ear. While the other points may be contradictory to my point, this is not unexpected. One might make a quote from Darwins 'The Origin of Species,' but this does mean that said person would endorse everything inside the book. If it did, this would be a shame because we know some of the details mentioned in there are outdated. The evidence in the quote provided is not conclusive on the matter, and in no ways disqualifies the point I was making. Other sources I presented present qualms with many of the points presented here.Argument against KindsAs I've stated, the Bible gives us a form of taxonomy to use. I would not expect this to be fully compatible with our taxonomy systems today. If we are to accurately determine what the Bible says on a subject, we must also try to understand the context and meaning of the terms it is using. Since the foundation of my claim comes from the Bible, from the idea that God created all of these animals and their categories, I must use the system of classification he gave for us. We do our best to evaluate where this line should be, most agree around the Family area, but this is not completely compatible. If you see this as a 'creationist tactic,' it is not for our own reasons.Also, simply because we sometimes relate to older systems so we can understand what they mean, this does not mean that we are behind the scientific conensus. I will use the current system of taxonomy where it is relevant. God, however, supercede human knowledge. Therefore, we must rely on his definitions when we are handling his word and matters such as origins.Argument against Polystrate FossilsNo, I’m really not. “Polystrate Fossils” only comes up in creationist circle-jerks. And Wikipedia as well I guess, but Wikipedia really isn’t that reliable.Then I would like to hear a secular perspective on them. Wikipedia usually has citations for everything they say, so it's as accurate as it's sourcework. Wikipedia, honestly, is no less reliable than the debate we're having right now.In part three of the journal my opponent quotes, the conclusion says the following:It is at least as likely that a world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis made this whole formation in a relatively short amount of time, each strata being laid down by enormous tides travelling by the site twice daily. In fact, the two sea bed strata fit the explanation of a global flood better than the hypothesis of many flash floods. The volcanic ash deposits interspersed among the strata would also fit the global catastrophe model as undoubtedly there would have been tremendous volcanic activity going on during this time.The author also asks three questions that an evolutionist would have to answer at the end. All three of these questions are explainable by the Biblical Flood as recorded in Genesis. These trees remain at least an issue to the evolutionary theory.The link below discussed this matter in more detail, explaining some of the places these are found, and how this is actually a big deal to the evolutionist.http://apologeticspress.org...