The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

I. " E-coli bacteria were still E-coli bacteria" I believe Pro is only concerned about physical changes in evolution, and chooses to ignore the chemical changes. I am assuming Pro believes because a process took a long time, it can never be proven? Yes, and when supposedly humans evolved, they were humans throughout evolution. Evolution is not a change of species (Dog to cat). But the evolutionary process is when the population is distinct and cannot interbreed with "parent" population. Or previous generations so to say. If a human evolves, it will stay a human. Notice how Homo sapiens, Homo Habilis, etc. . . all the name "Homo"? This mean all the past population were part of the human species. All that means is, the past populations cannot interbreed with previous populations because they have changed. They are still human. http://www.pbs.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... II. "So moths tend to have wings with different colors, so what?" This is quite a high level of ignorance from Pro. Let me point out by saying, the peppered moth are one the largest studied creatures due to the evolutionary change. A moth does not change into a bee. It stays a moth, yes, but it has changed because it has adapted to its environment. If my opponent agrees that fact, I fail to understand why he does not agree with more drastic changes? Why cant the moths further adapt and become more complex. III. Using my opponents source, the source states "Although the plantaris does have little importance, there are injuries that can occur. It can be damaged in an Achilles tendon rupture". With that being said, I would like to point out 9% of the population is born without a plantaris because it is so useless. It shows that humans do not need this muscle anymore. "Furthermore, Con is confusing organs which have currently unknown uses, with organs having no uses at all. I believe my opponent is implying the Plantaris? He has not stated which organ has an "unknown use". If this is the case, even if the plantaris has a function, no harm will be done if taken out. It is not a necessary organ. Also, I fail to see how that is my "blind assumption" when I have provided my source. "Notice the same thing is happening now with the appendix that Con also assumes too hastily is useless." Again, using Pros source, it states "people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC." "With no clear determination of what the appendix does, there's no agreement on whether prophylactic appendectomies". So, there is no clear function of the appendix. It can be debated if the appendix is a useless organ or not, but main point is, it was one time useful, and it's not as useful as before. Does it have a function? Yes. Is it harmful when removed? No. "Now evolutionists expect us to believe that the appendix evolve more than 30 times in more than 30 separate kinds of animals?" I fail to see what my opponent means by saying "us". "It seems more likely that these animals were created with an appendix, than that just by sheer lucky chance they all managed to evolve the exact same appendage." Perhaps thats because we share a common ancestor, such as fish. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... "Con"s appeal to what the majority of scientists say is simply an argument that truth is decided by majority vote." What? Science isn't a vote structure! Its based on evidence and experiments such as the E.coli, peppered moth, etc. . . I fail to understand why my opponent agrees with the fact that its true for some species to adapt to short amount of time, but my opponent disagrees with the fact that it can continue to happen to make the species more complex. "And yet, the E-coli were nothing radically different at the end of all those mutations." What? Every organism adapts to its surrounding. The E.coli didn't need to become more complex, because there was no pressure on its environment. Thus, explains why the E.coli was able to use citric acid as a carbon source.