Macro-evoluton is valid

Introduction For the umpteenth time, evolution =/= abiogenesis. If abiogenesis was shown to be incorrect, that holds absolutely no relevance to the theory of evolution. As an example, you might as well say that the prevailing theory in cosmogony (the Big Bang), should also explain a hypothesis such as mantle plumes. It’s an absurd position to take really.I would like to point out that Con did not provide journals on this matter. Furthermore, the links that Con gave do not even support his claim that life came from rocks. What those links say is that life may have travelled to Earth via meteorites. It does not state that the life on said hypothesized meteorite, actually arose from said meteorite. These are two very different things, and as we can see, Con has a rather bad habit of conflating two different things and then acting as if his conflation correct. We are not supposed to be discussing abiogenesis because abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis; evolution is a scientific theory. They are not one and the same and your conflation of these two show-cases fairly sloppy work. Argument 1 Your argument regarding the law of biogenesis was disingenuous. Rotting meat =/= chemical reactions. No matter how hard you try, you cannot get around the fact that what was being disproven was the notion that organisms can arise from rotting meat, and not chemical reactions. You are simply trying shove chemical reactions underneath the umbrella term of “non-life.” No more really needs to be said on the matter as Con’s foundational argument is based on yet another erroneous conflation.Argument 2 No it didn’t Con. Under normal conditions, E.Coli cannot ingest citrate. When oxygen is present, E.Coli cannot ingest citrate. I would also like to bring to attention that Con has not answered my question I asked of him in the previous round. And that question is how this potentiating mutation was merely a recombination of nucleotides, when there is no evidence of this potentiating mutation found in the frozen samples of E.coli. If this was a mere recombination of nucleotides, we would have found evidence of this in the frozen samples. This is important because this experiment is actually an example of how evolution can cause a new function to arise, as there is absolutely no evidence of this mutation in ancestral cells - which for all intents and purposes is classified as “new information.”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.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.The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Lamarckian evolution has been falsified. There are no current, credible scientific journals which defend Lamarckian evolution. None. Once again, this would have been an interesting discussion in 1910. This is not a discussion that is relevant to modern biology because we are not still stuck in the early 20th Century.Argument 3 Con admitted mistake with sources - please refer to comments for clarification.I cannot read this one. It seems as if it’s a part of the archived section of Nature and not available for personal use. I would like to know how Con read this source, seeing as I’ve been going around in circles trying to read this. This one I was able to read and I’m already finding blatant holes in Con’s argument just by reading the abstract. To the audience, you will be able to read this journal if you look to the end of my round and look at source [6].“Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo Erects. In contrast. The semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of extant great apes. Among early Homo specimens, the canal dimensions of Stw 53 are unlike those seen in any of the hominids or great apes, whereas those of SK 847 are modern-human-like.”Even worse for you is this quote from pg. 648:“Among the fossil hominids investigated, the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human semicircular canal morphology is Homo erectus. Hence, if the enlargement of the anterior and posterior canals is functionally related to modern human-like obligatory bipedalism, then at least in this respect the vestibular apparatus of the australopithecines was not adapted to this type of locomotive behavior. These observations support studies of the postcranial fossil record which have concluded that H. erectus was an obligatory biped, whereas A. Africanus showed a locomotor repertoire comprising facultative bipedalism as well as arboreal climbing.”Con, you acknowledged that you made a mistake in the comment section with regards to your sources. That is fine. Not great, but as long as you admitted your mistake, that was all that needed to be said. However, your “fixed” sources don’t paint a good picture either. I can’t read the first one, and the second one doesn’t even support your notion that evolution is wrong. 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. Do you not read the original sources which you’re citing?Argument against kinds “Kind” is generally at the Family level, but not always? Well, that’s some brilliant weasel words, considering that us humans are classified as Great Apes and that we belong to the Family of Hominidae. Con insists on using vacuous words such as “kinds” in order to move the goal-posts to wherever he feels like. Unfortunately, this is a common creationist tactic and this makes Con approximately 280 years behind the scientific consensus. Con might as well have chosen to ignore classical mechanics; it would have got him the same result. We have advanced quite a bit in the past 300 years, yet Con refuses to catch up with the current era, and would much rather act as if the past 280 years of progress in biological taxonomy never occurred. I don’t think anything else needs to be said on this matter; my point is rather clear.Argument against “Polystrate Fossils”No, 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.Even Ian Juby knows what they are technically called [1] – [3]. He still refers to these as “polystrate trees,” sometimes, but even someone as inept as Wazooloo can get something as basic as this right.Furthermore, Con is apparently completely unaware that environments change over time. We can find instances of where the Stigmaria roots (from Sigillaria) can go through layers of coal. This was discussed on pg 179 of Acadian Geology – the first page of chapter 12. And guess what? Coal is formed at the bottom of swamps [4].Lycopods going through layers of mud is usually how these occur, and these often happen in swamp deposits because of how often they flood. If you look to pg. 191 -192 of Acadian Geology, J.W Dawson gives an explanation of how these are usually foundI would also like a source for Con’s claim of a lycopod going through a layer of strata in the Grand Canyon. I will touch on Con bringing up Andrew Snelling's "journal" in later rounds - no more space [1] http://ianjuby.org... [2] http://ianjuby.org... [3] http://ianjuby.org... [4] http://www.planete-energies.com... [5] https://archive.org...