Macroevolution is a Scientifically Correct Explanation for the Diversity of Life on Earth.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Transitional Fossils Does my opponent really expect transitional fossils to pop up every couple thousand years? First of all, such a bountiful amount of fossils would be a paleontologist's wet dream. Fossils are very hard to form, and even harder to find. The fossil record isn't perfect, and is most likely will never be perfect. However we are making more accurate year after year with more findings that eventually paint a clearer picture of the evolution of the diversity of life on earth. Even more ridiculous is the notion that a transitional fossil will even come along that early. Evolution takes a LONG time, it's not something that happens under a couple thousand years. And if my opponent want's to find TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS (in the context of the definition I gave earlier) then that will be an even more rare occurrence. So as I have shown, transitional fossils do VERY MUCH to support Macroevolution. They show how speciation has occurred, and where critical stages where confronted and passed (like from land to water). My examples are valid, my definitions in accordance, and my opponent's argument refuted. 2. Comparative Anatomy The burden of proof was on you to show it did not back up Macroevolution. Instead, you attacked it on more of a philosophical basis, rather than a scientific basis. You argued that comparative anatomy can be used as "proof" for other explanations, such as God or an intelligent designer. True, they can feasibly thought to be so. But as I've stated: the scientific community judges theories on the evidence that backs them up. Your application for comparative anatomy to God makes a gigantic leap, showing no evidence for why God would made such details. I will explain further on since the rest of your rebuttals tend to stay in this area. "Ok,.. SOOO, If the answer doesn't prove others wrong, and at least as of yet, proved itself right, why is your resolution CORRECT??" --> With the explanation of a god or some outside creator, we can explain EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD/UNIVERSE WITH SUCH. Why is the sky blue? Cause god made it so. Why can water be in 3 forms? Cause god made it so. Why is wood flammable? Cause god made it so. This is obviously NOT how science works. We look at the facts, base a hypothesis, make tests and see if the theory works out. A theory is valued on the evidence behind it, it's implications, and it's predictive power. "Who is we,..? Why are you and the other we(s) the barometer of scientific correctness in regards to life as we know it?? I guess you are saying, I am wrong because you said so. Again, as of yet, you havent provided any such evidence or even applied." --> We meaning the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. I am surprised you don't know the simple concept of how theories are proven and supported. Simply because you can conjure of an explanation (God or intelligent designer) does NOT invalidate another theory, unless there is direct conflict in facts. "Your opening argument didn't say much of anything. Nor did your second round. I mean, are you saying its the most correct? Again, its pretty vague, your correct, I'm correct, heck, lets all be correct." --> My opening argument and the resolution shows that I support Macroevolution, or evolution in general, to be a scientifically supported explanation for the diversity of life. IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD. All you have contended is that GOD did it, or an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. Sure, they are explanations, but they are not SCIENTIFICALLY BACKED UP explanations, at least you haven't shown them to be in this debate. And once again, just because there are OTHER EXPLANATIONS does not INVALIDATE ANOTHER ONE, unless there's a direct conflict of facts. Scientifically, Macroevolution IS the only one, but GOD can still be an explanation, though not a SCIENTIFIC one. "I am not required to explain any resolution, just refute yours. I mentioned God as an example to my theory explaining the coincidence in comparative anatomy." --> I've already said God isn't part of science. "Congratulations, now all ya have to do is show why macroevolution is scientifically correct,.. or in your words, one of perhaps several other correct scientific theories explaining diversity of Earth's life. My opponent evidently feels that there are multiple correct answers." --> Macroevolution is the correct scientific explanation. Your explanation is God, who is not part of science, ergo is not a valid explanation in the context of this debate. "You got me, God is not science, however at least I have one answer. Yours evidently is one of many answers that all can simultaneously be the correct contributor to the same conclusion." --> SCIENCE. It's all about SCIENCE. The facts point to Macroevolution, not God. ~Conclusion~ I have refuted all my opponent's arguments. His underlying argument is that there are other correct explanation for the diversity of life, which happens to be God. However, I have clearly shown that God is NOT a scientific explanation, and thus Macroevolution stands.