Evolution is scientific.

First off, this debate is not about the validity of creationism, it is about whether or not macroevolution is scientific. That is why I have not attempted to give evidence for creation. My opponent states the following to support his claim that macroevolution is observable: 1."scientists have already observed the genetic mutation of species including in cockroaches, fish, lizards and other examples I mentioned in R1" - These are perfect examples of microevolution, but not macroevolution. 2. "after a significant number of genetic mutations (WHICH WE HAVE OBSERVED FIRST HAND), the new adaptation of the species would indeed be enough to be considered a separate species." - This is untrue! These "mutations" would only make the cockroaches better suited for their environment. They would still be cockroaches. Therefore this is not observing macroevolution 3. "we have indeed observed the origin of entire new species both in the laboratory and in the wild" - You say this but provide no evidence that it is true. Just because you say that the origin of entire new species have been observed, does not mean it happened. Therefore this also provides no evidence that macroevolution has been observed. 4. "For scientific evidence of observed instances of speciation, check here." - I have "clicked here" and read the article. This article speaks about many examples of new species being created. Although a new species might have been created, they did not gain information. These examples are very similar to that of a Chihuahua. The Chihuahua was cross bread from two other dogs. IT IS A NEW SPECIES! Yet this is far from macroevolution. Some of your examples even died because of these mutations. 5. "the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution - Natural selection does not explain evolution. Natural selection: ": a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"[1] So the best suited qualities of an organism get passed on and on so that the organism eventually gets better and better. But this is just "selecting" the best qualities of the qualities that are already present. Therefore the animal will get better and better suited for its environment, but it will never gain information. Therefore natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You state, natural selection is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes, but as I have just shown, natural selection cannot be used to support evolution. 6. "Since speciation.....has been proven(observed many times), the evolutionist will concede to macroevolution being true. - But as I have shown, the Chihuahua fits in with the other examples your posted article, therefore this cannot be proof for evolution. 7. "It is logical and reasonable to conclude that to prevent extinction, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. - This is false. As the definition I posted above says, the organism will grow better suited for its environment, but will never gain information. 8. "In short, I have completely negated Con's supposition that evolution has not been observed" - This is also incorrect, as I have successfully shown all of your arguments to be false. Pro still has the burden of proof. I have shown all of his arguments that macroevolution is observable to be false. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...