Macro-evoluton is valid

Introduction You are confusing something. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. I’ve already gone over this.Your ridiculous straw-man that we came from rocks is not what evolution teaches. If you want to assert that evolution teaches this, find me a credible scientific journal which states that we come from rocks. If you cannot do this, then you’re just repeating Kent Hovind’s asinine straw-man which was popularised in 2001.As for evidence of abiogenesis, this is not one subject I'm all too familiar with. However, I don't even need to provide evidence for abiogensis as the topic of abiogenesis is not being discussed. We are supposed to be discussing evolution, not abiogenesis. Your silly mistake of conflating evolution and abiogenesis is not my problem. First argument You used the example of spontaneous generation, and then acted as if this is relevant to the topic of abiogenesis. That’s your own fault for doing that. Whilst I do not like having to go over terms time and time again, I have to do this constantly because your exceptionally sloppy wording. The only thing that was disproven was that evolved life-forms cannot spontaneously generate from rotting flesh. What was not disproven is the notion that chemicals could give rise to life. You are using “life can’t come from non-life” as an umbrella statement to try and force abiogenesis into the same bag as spontaneous generation, and that is… Well, it’s just dishonest. Abiogenesis is not what was disproven; spontaneous generation was. Argument 2 No, it’s not micro-evolution actually. The ability to ingest citrate is a major factor in what separates E.Coli from Salmonella. E.Coli cells could not grow on citrate under oxic conditions, and after generation 30, 000, this was no longer the case due to a rare mutation; there were Cit+ variants being introduced. Not being able to ingest citrate is a key factor which pretty much defined E.Coli, and Lesnki’s experiment shows that a core characteristic of E.Coli was flipped on its head.Con also (wrongfully) claims that there was no new “information,” since this was a simple recombination of nucleotides. Below is a quote from [1] (I’ve substituted the superscript from quote with a “to the power of” sign, so that it’s readable when argument is posted – the rest of quote remains unchanged). “We observed no Cit+mutants among 8.4x10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9x10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations.” I would like Con to answer how this was merely a simple recombination when there wasn’t any evidence of this potentiating mutation in the ancestral cells, especially since samples from every 500 generations of E.Coli were frozen in order to allow Lenski and cohorts to go back and look for evidence of such a mutation. I believe “checkmate” sums up this situation well. I’m looking back over your argument for round 2, and I see no mention of neutral mutations. So that’s wrong. You did neglect to mention neutral mutations, and instead only focused in on beneficial or deleterious mutations.Con yet again shows his gross misunderstanding when discussing evolution. Having your arm own cut off is not a mutation. It doesn’t even work as an analogy because mutations occur via copulation. Mutations don’t occur because you had your arm cut off. Con has admitted his mistake in claiming that most mutations were deleterious, so no further comment on this subject is required. My point is made.I find it odd that Con has come across this argument, “mutations aren't our only means of gaining grounds. In fact, we know the giraffe has a long neck because it had to stretch it's neck to get to the top branch” for evolution. That is Lamarckian evolution, something which has been disproven for many, many years. This conversation would have been relevant in the early 1900’s, though I am currently reading through a journal [2] which goes over why Lamarckism was still popular amongst French scientists even into the late 1900’s. I won’t be able to read the entirety of this journal in time for my argument though, so let’s just say that I give that Neo-Lamarckism was popular amongst French scientists until the mid-1980’s, as this journal argues. You are still 20 years out of date in the most generous scenario. Third argument Yes, there have been hoaxes. Thing is we admit that these are hoaxes. The hoaxes you brought up have been shown to be hoaxes and are not considered evidence of evolutionary theory. Two can play the game with the hoaxes though. Remember the Ica stones? This conversation leads nowhere. And no, Lucy was most certainly not a hoax. Where’s your evidence that Lucy is a hoax in the same way that Piltdown man was a hoax?No Con, there is no argument about Lucy’s bipedalism. There is an argument about Lucy’s arboreality. A specimen can be bipedal and yet still live in trees at the same time. You focusing in on Lucy’s ability to live in trees does not automatically refute Lucy’s ability for bipedalism. if you have evidence, show a credible, peer-reviewed journal. i don't care for quotes which are allotted to a single scientist. You want to sway my stance, quote a journal. “Since we brought up apemen, can we appreciate the fact that we find bones of present-day man out of place in the fossil record, before they are supposed to be around?”You gave references for this, but whjen I look this up I can only find idiotic creationist websites repeating the same thing. I woulkd like a link to the original source you got this from if you may. Further arguments I need to make Con uses “kinds” to classify animals. "Kinds" is not a thing in biological taxonomy, which has been a thing for nigh on 3 centuries when Systema Naturae was published in 1735. If you use Linnean taxonomy (which consists of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus & species), that would be acceptable in a lay discussion. There are of course other classifications such as There are Subphylum, Class, Infraclass, Cohort, Magnorder, Superorder, Suborder, Parvorder, Superfamily, Subfamily etc."Kinds" is not an acceptable term to use for numerous reasons. You are nearly 3 centuries behind the scientific consensus on this Con. 300 years!As for your "polystrate trees," this has been a creationist claim which has been refuted so often, it's a wonder why you lot keep on bringing this up. I will be using Acadian Geology: The Geological Structure, Organic Remains and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island - Third Edition [3] as a source to refute your claim for this. The relevant pages are pg. 179 - 202.First of all, "polystrate trees" aren't the correct term; Lycopodiophyta is the correct, modern umbrella term for these. The reason I object to your naming convention is that it is misleading. “Poly” means many and “strate” refers to strata. The name implies that these lycopods go through multiple layers of strata which is incorrect. They don’t go through multiple layers of strata. In other words, these lycopods are found in swamp deposits… Hum de la hum. Now, question. What are swamps and bogs infamous for? I’ll let you know, because obviously you haven't figured this one out. They flood. Regularly. No-one says that swamp deposits form over billions or even millions of years! Swamp deposits take mere decades to form! Because of how often these floods occur in swamps, mud layers are created over the last mud layer and this is how these lycopods are found the way that they are. [1] http://www.pnas.org... [2] https://www.researchgate.net... [3] https://archive.org...