Macro-evolution Never Occured

EXTENSIONS a.) Gene Duplication and Macro-Evolution The opposition calls my case a non-sequitur, saying that the conclusion does not follow, and that speciation occurs on a micro-evolutionary scale. This is the crux of absurdity; macro-evolution and speciation are ONE AND THE SAME! Referring to the definition of evolution on a separate gene basis, a small mutation, which leads to a separation of species, could ultimately lead to what is called speciation. Hence, what the opposition says is science-and science that supports macro-evolution. What the opposition said here is also a huge blow to his argument-for his reason to supporting the denial of macro-evolution is to call macro-evolution micro-evolution! Secondly, the opposition says "fruit flies [Drosphillia] could not evolve." The opposition (or rather, the Institute of Creation Research) however fails to understand what they are saying themselves. The opposition cites a paper by Tautz (1998). However, on further inspection of this paper, this paper studies the divergence of a gene that causes hunchback conditions in fruit flies. [1] Moreover, the opposition ignores the fact that many fruit flies have been observed speciating. A paper by Coryne (1989) found "that mating discrimination and postzygotic isolation evolve at comparable rate," prompting researches to conclude that "the genetic distance required to attain species status, i.e., to reach a "total isolation" value is 0.85," indeed asserting that the fruit-fly can indeed speciate and henceforth evolve. [2] b.) Mutation and Macro-Evolution Pro says that "found De Vries's changes were not due to mutations, but unequal chromosome numbers in evening primroses that cause hybrid plants to appear, producing new varieties." Clearly, this still ignores the fact that the O. Gigas were unable to create any O. Lamarckiana. In fact, the O. Gigas and the O. Lamarckiana cannot be considered true macro-mutational changes. They were still evening primroses. Pro says the case was not refuted. Perhaps Pro is standing on his head-I have presented Nosil (2010) in direct opposition to the mutation-speciation hypothesis. Pro wants more. Pro will have more. In reviewing speciation research since the creation of new genetic advances, Nei (2011) say, “the genomes of flowering plants are fundamentally polyploidy,” which is not wrong, as at least 30% of all plants are products of polyploidization. [3,4] This suggests that at least 3 of every 10 plants once had the same number of chromosomes, but soon, some plants doubled, diverging from their original plants to becoming new separate species whatsoever-a type of genetic mutation. This directly refutes the “mutation and no speciation” hypothesis of the opposition. Moreover, mutation is not the only tool that could cause speciation. Isolation is another factor one needs to consider. The opposition did not seem to pick this up. The London Underground Mosquito is an example of this-some Mosquitos were trapped underground, and recently speciated in such a manner that makes it genetically dissimilar enough to be called a species. [5] c.) Transposons and 'Homology' The opposition affirms that "the scientific literature Con proposes only and merely spoke of a change at the microevolution level." This is simply absurd-is not the addition of new alleles a direct tool for the creation of new phenotypes and genotype? Does this not necessarily lead to speciation, and macro-evolutionary changes in the long term level? Pro then assumes that the greatest blow to my case is the fact that ">98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect." De minimis! What the opposition then goes on to say is that "Common genome does not mean "of common descent." How much more is similar genome? It cannot be of common descent!" Apart from the horrid grammar (which shows that the opposition actually wrote this, not copy and pasted it from somewhere), this is simply false. Why is it so then that, even if epigenetical factors come into influence, that humans and mouses have a 60% genomic similarity, yet huge phenotypic irregularities and divergence from each other? [6] The opposition says that "[the genome structure] of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium." The opposition would be glad to know indeed of the existence of the Wallace Line, which separates a species of bat away from each other. To the East of the Wallace Lines, Marsupials are dominant; to the West, placentals are dominant. The opposition would be glad to find that the geographic isolation of both of them has speciated the Bats into two species, even though phenotypic similarity between them were huge. [7] We may henceforth conclude that phenotype does not necessarily lead to similar genotype, as the opposition affirms in his original argument (which states that genotypic similarity does not necessitate common ancestry). This ultimately creates the explanation for genotypic similarity unsound. d.) Epigenetics The opposition says that macro-evolution is new genes coming into existence. What is this but not a total attempt to destroy and undermine the true definitions of this debate? Macro-Evolution is evolution on the scale of separate gene pool levels-which does not presume the spontaneous existence of new genes whatsoever (although it does assume the change of an old gene to create another version of the old gene). The opposition's attempts at understanding epigenetics is purely absurd. The opposition says that "Epigenetics occurs under natural conditions as well as by free volition of a sentient species." Are you saying that my desire of a tail will create a tail? Or my desire to be a monkey will make me a monkey? This is absurd-although epigenetic changes can happen as a result of our actions, we cannot make tails whatsoever. Epigenetics does not challenge Macro-Evolution in any way whatsoever-all epigenetic changes could be viewed as the creation of other variations, which is all normal in the cycle of evolution and life. e.) Fossils I will tackle this in a (a.) sophistical manner, and then (b.) in an synthetical manner. The opposition (a.) firstly starts off by saying that "Con should rather have presented at least one transitional fossil that is without any shadow of doubt a transitional fossil acknowledged by a scientific consensus." Pro should have "without any shadow of doubt" read my first argument, which details the development of the Archeoraptyx and several other transitional fossils. Apart from this, this is an argument from "populace." "Since x disagrees with y, and since 9,000 other people disagree with y, y is wrong" is an invalid formation of any argument whatsoever. Moreover, Pro says that the fossils "are fully formed and hence, it is obviously not transitional." What is Pro trying to say here? By saying that they are spontaenous is obviously a illogical thing to do. The fossils we have only present a very, VERY tiny minority of all life that has ever existed on this earth of ours-we should not henceforth assume full perfection at the records that it shows. NEVERTHELESS, by (b.) observing the changing phenotypes for ancient birds and ancient whales, would the opposition not argue that they look fundamentally different from today's beings? That is because they were fully formed for their time! For example, the Attercopus is often considered to be a distinct ancestor of current day spiders. The Attercopus produces silk instead of spider-webs, a clear indication that the Attercopus's phenotype differs from the phenotype of the Spider, yet they were some important similar phenotypes, like the Attercopus and the modern Spider both have eight legs. [8] The fossil record is in no way complete; but in the case of the Attercopus, we can trace their phenotypically similar cousins to the Jurrasic period, where the first modern spiders first came into existence. [9] We are henceforth given a timeline-incomplete, yet abled enough for comparisons to be made about evolution. Indeed, it can be certain that fossils indeed give enough evidence for supporting macro-evolution. CONCLUSIONS The opposition's case fails on many respects. Apart from fallacies commited, the BoP of the opposition has yet to been filled. The resolution is negated on this respect! CITATIONS: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.jstor.org... [3] http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org...[4]http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...[5] http://phylointelligence.com...[6] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[7] http://www.researchsea.com...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...