Macro-evolution Never Occured

FRAMEWORK This is a fact debate. We are debating "macro-evolution." Henceforth, we have to start with several definitions, which will be lengthy, but necessary. Firstly, this is not a religious debate-this is a factual debate on macro-evolution. The opposition may base his/her stance on religion and Genesis. However, an argument from the Bible as a "alternative development story" than that of Macro-Evolution ultimately do not assert or negate the case in anyway, unless sufficient proofs are brought out for it. Secondly, this is not a debate about the origins of life. Abiogenesis is not the main contention of this debate. The main contention of this debate is the concept of macroevolution i.e. can life evolve from one species to another? Macro-Evolution is henceforth defined "evolution on a scale of separate gene-pool," often characterized by the separation of the species from its latest "common ancestor." Hence we have all the right to assert that if macro-evolution were possible in one scenario, then macro-evolution is possible in all scenarios, for the motion here states that macro-evolution never happened, which meant that in this world, macro-evolution never happened once. The Burden of Proof of Side Proposition is henceforth to prove (a) that historical macro-evolution is false, (b) that even if historical macro-evolution is false, macro-evolution is impossible, and (c) refute all evidences inductive of leading to the conclusion that macro-evolution never occurred. The Burden of Proof of Side Opposition is to simply prove that (a) macro-evolution has happened, which may result in the need to prove that (b) historical macro-evolution has happened, and (c) that all evidences that lead to the macro-evolution conclusion is affirmed. ARGUMENTS a.) Observed Macroevolution In 1905, Hugo DeVries, a noted biologist, delivered a series of lectures on species and varieties. In it, he did note the appearance ofOenothera Gigas. He also noted the fact that the Oenothera Gigas has "never reverted to the [Oenothera] lamarckiana," the mutant that he bred to create the O. Gigas. [1] He noted that O. Gigas on average had "broader, greener [leaves whose] blade more sharply set off against the stalk." This is important, as the parent O. Lamarckiana had much of the same features as the O. Gigas, but they were unable to interbreed. This suggests very clear evidence that the O. Gigas was an actual speciation of the O. Lamarckiana. This is not the only observed example of macroevolution. Goatsbeard were first introduced to the United States in the 19th Century. The three types of goatsbeard introduced (T. dubius, T. pratensis and T. porrifolius) often bred with each other, resulting in the new speciated hybrid called the T. miscellus, which can reproduce with its own kind. These T. miscellus were often sterile, allowing for quick spread of the species. [2] In sentient beings, we can note that the anole lizard has gone through at least 400 speciations, with more being ascribed to it everyday. According to a paper written by Losos, the "nearly 150 Caribbean species are descendants from as few as two initial colonizing species from the mainland." [3] These three instances of observed macro-evolution seriously point out that this was also historical. b.) Biochemistry It is a well-known fact that human and chimpanzee genome are very similar, but different. The degree of difference has never been more than ±5%. As Varki reports, the "difference between the [human and chimpanzee] genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences." [4] This suggests that we have a common ancestor whose genomes were actually wholly similar, some type of Pan Prior between the two species. c.) Fossils Fossils represent the best evidences for macro-evolution. Archaeopteryx is an observed transitional fossil that incorporates reptile-mammal differences. The toes of Archaeopteryx had bird-like qualities i.e. they were opposable, whilst the maximilla (mouth and jaw) of the Archaeopteryx was not horn-covered. [5] Although the Archaeopteryx (Fig. 2) may be seen as a spontaneous addition to the evolutionary timeline, we can easily see that it is not. The Archaeopteryx is preceded by one speciation, called the Velociraptor. The evolution of the Velociraptor could be seen as a random mutation, which did soon lead to modern day birds. Velociraptor had "had two large hand-like appendages with three curved claw," similar to many modern birds, yet it, unlike birds, did not have the ability to fly. [6] The random mutation that led to each evolution is also apparent in whales. Large amounts of evidence points to the fact that whales once had legs. Noting the fact that whales were mamals who swam in a different manner than other fishes (whales move their tails vertically, whilst fishes moved horizontally), scientists were able to shed some light on the evolution of whales. Early whales were genetically close to the Georgiacetus, an underwater mammal, much like a manatee, that feasted on squids and such. These proto-whales, found in the "Tethys Ocean," now between Asia and India, were found to be quite like whales, and at the same time, quite different from whales. For example, although they swam like whales, they lived above the environment in what a modern whale would live in. [7] Whatever the case, modern whales have vestigial pelvis hidden under their thick skin. [8] Fig. 2: Archeoraptyx d.) Molecular Evidences There are some genes which exist in nature that all living things need to function. These are called ubiquitous genes. Cytochrome c is an example of this gene. Via tracking the amount of amino acids in this gene, the amino acids in each gene appears at differing places. It should henceforth be expected that, since the cytochrome c genome in some animals are closer than others, those animals evolved from common ancestry (are more closely related than other animals). An example of this is the monkey-cow and monkey-fish cytochrome c relationships, which suggests, "The cytochrome c of monkeys and cows is more similar than the cytochrome c of monkeys and fish. [This shows] that monkeys and cows art more closely related than are monkeys and fish" as the variance of the gene are more closely related with each other. [11] Apart from this, retroviruses also provide us with a great evidence for evolution. Retroviruses are virus-DNA that are hereditarily passed on.The retroviruses suggest some sort of common ancestry as the viruses are passed species to species, then generation to generation. Fig. I: Retrovirus Through Species This clearly shows that the 1% of our genome that is filled with retroviruses, which can only be passed on hereditarily, are similar to those of a gibbon, yet we, in our genome, have other retroviruses that are not found in gibbons etc. This clearly suggests common ancestry. REFUTATIONS a.) New Gene added to Genome The opposition has said that "there are still NO mechanism that explains HOW a new gene is added into a genome." Emphasis on the no-because, nope, this proposition is not true. There are many ways in which a gene could mutate. For example, the hybridization of the horse and donkey has caused the zorse to appear. The zorse is a sterile hybrid animal whose genome is a combination of that of a horse and a donkey, resulting in a particularly disturbing phenotype as a result of two dominant alleles. [9] Apart from this, exposure to other more dangerous materials and the inability for a DNA to accurately copy itself are other explanations of a natural cause for mutation. [10] b.) Mere "Scientific Hypothesis" Firstly, macro-evolution is no longer a mere scientific hypothesis, but rather, a tool and (some would argue) a "law" which bases biology. A scientific hypothesis assumes that the result of the hypothesis can still be falsified i.e. the proposition's proof is not already presented. The numerous views based upon what is scientific and what is unscientific can always be prescribed to evolution, or macro-evolution, to show that it is scientific. More will be said on this next round. THE MOTION IS NEGATED! CITATIONS: [1] http://www.gutenberg.org... [2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... [3] http://www.oeb.harvard.edu... [4] http://genome.cshlp.org... [5] http://www.talkorigins.org... [6] http://www.livescience.com... [7] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [8] http://www.livescience.com... [9] http://mentalfloss.com... [10] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [11] http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu... [12] http://www.talkorigins.org...