Macro Evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief

I'll hit on my provided arguments and then continue onto my opponent's points. Starting off with my arguments, they seemed to be completely ignored. Nowhere did my opponent mention or directly refute my argument. This is so vastly important to the debate that it should allow me the win, simply because the argument I made went unmentioned. My argument provided a different interpretation of the term 'macro evolution'. From my opponent's source, the definition refers to either a change at OR above the level of species. Notice the 'or' allows for two sides of the definition. My opponent did not prefer one in the first round, therefore left the choice up to me. I chose the 'above' species level, referring to the universe, rather than any species. My opponent failed to show why we should be debating the 'at' species level as opposed to the 'above' level I'm arguing, and therefore we should go with my points for doing it. Until my opponent shows that we should be debating the 'at species level', then the points he presents on that level are irrelevant to the debate and the win flows to me. But, for completeness, I'll still refute his points. 1) Mutations My opponent proposes two situations he believes rarely occur, and therefore uses them to try and show macro evolution more of a belief than a fact. The two presented points show a serious lack of understanding by my opponent, and a classical selfish view often standing in the way of science. I'll present my opponent's points and clarify his error. A) Mutations must be positive to allow the organism to procreate and survive. Macro evolution is simply evolution as observed across a long period. Evolution is simply natural selection occurring again and again many times. Suppose there is a black lizard that lives in a sand desert. If the lizard was to mutate into a brown lizard, it would likely be able to hide from predators more easily. This is a beneficial mutation. Now suppose that lizard had mutated hot pink. Then, the lizard would attract all sorts of predators. The difference between the brown lizard and the hot pink lizard is that the brown lizard would have time to safely procreate and multiply by remaining hidden from predators while the hot pink lizard would likely be eaten right away, leaving no time for procreation. Mutations can be beneficial and certainly can be hazardous, but the hazardous mutations kill out an individual organism whilst the beneficial mutations evolve species. B) Mutations must add information to the genome. This is actually also a false premise. An animal can be greatly changed by mutations that don't add information, and ones that simply change the existing information. Ie, substitution. This can change the number of appendages, color, diet, size, behavior, and shape altogether. This type of mutation alone can easily account for macro evolution, but alas this is not all. My opponent states that information can't be added to the genome, but this has been falsified. A process called insertion is when bases are added the the genome. These new bases can completely change the array of DNA creating DRASTICALLY different results. Some beneficial mutations will occur, and some hazardous. My opponent states this is not likely, but he fails to realize simple life has had 14 billion years to evolve whilst complex life (on our planet) has had over 4 billion years to evolve. This means that a mutation once every 5000 years will still result in over 800,000 different mutations. This can account for the many different types of life we observe today. 2) Chance of Life Developing The research that Dr. Salisbury conducted was just another example of our close-minded point of view. Suppose this universe went on and collapsed upon itself, obliterating matter as Quantum Physics shows happens. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Would we be able to record this span of time? No. If we existed in the universe created thus after would we be able to measure the time before the existence of that particular universe? No. Quantum physics shows that the nothingness in which universes create and destroy themselves has existed an infinite amount of time. This means that the time in which life could come to exist is an infinite span. Any contingency (possibility of an event) in an infinite span, given appropriate conditions, will continually get more and more likely to happen. This means that we our observing our own existence for the reason that this HAD to happen eventually, and that we can ONLY observe our existence (as opposed to our non existence. ) 3)Second Law of Thermodynamics I'm running out of space, so I'll keep the remaining refutations short, sweet, and to the point. The second law refers to the transfer of heat [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] and that, basically, the transfer of heat energy from one place to the other will result in a loss of heat. Attempting to apply this law to a system as complex as life is an insult to the second law and life themselves. A system such as life has many variables that affect the movement of energy within it. One example is life's need for energy from some type of food. This is taking in energy, which allows for the life to mutate, procreate, move, etc. The second law simply shows why life needs food, and fails to falsify macro evolution in any way. 4) Fossil Record Another example of close - mindedness. Every species you look at is a 'transitional' species. Transitional species, by definition, is a species that is in the process of evolving from one species to another. A bear has a species it evolved from, and a species it will evolve in to, making is a transition species. You can't expect to see a 'croco-duck' because the two species are not related, and are both currently existed. To refer to the most personal example of transition species, we can see ourselves as transition species. The monkey-like humans of the past were the before, we are the now, and it's not yet known the after. 'transition' is a point of view, not a falsification of macro evolution. 5) Radio Carbon Dating This is irrelevant to the debate. I don't know why it was brought up. CONCLUSION Even though I've refuted my opponent's points, it's quite irrelevant as I chose the open ended route this debate was to take ---The macro evolution involving the universe itself. All that I had to prove, by that interpretation, was that the universe did in fact change. Movement is a change, things in the universe obviously move, therefore I have proven my side and until my opponent shows why this is a bad interpretation or why his is better he has lost this debate.