Macroevolution is a Scientifically Correct Explanation for the Diversity of Life on Earth.

The resolution is certainly vague, in other words, I, as con, must not support the stance that "Macroevolution is a Scientifically Correct Explanation for the Diversity of Life on Earth. " I could do this in different ways, denying the "correctness" of macroevolution; I could deny that the theories supporting macroevolution do not go far enough to explain the diversity of life as concrete proof. If it is alright with my opponent, I will now provide the definitions of macroevolution, as well as some other important terms to be used, as I see them. I will try to respect my opponents "angle" and remain in the boundaries of this particular charge, and not go to much into alternative theories. MACROevolution: This is the study of changes at or above the level of species. It studies the changes of evolution is seperated gene pools. >>Good of Macro= One of the more "practical" approaches to evolution. It often links basic enviornmental, social, and even domestic changes as the influence of evolution. >> Bad of Macro= Despite efforts of the theory to be practically applied, it still has not been able to be proven with certainty. As with most scientific theories, macro has not been able to prove itself, or DIS prove its counters. To further elaborate on the negatives of Macroevolution theory,. .. Transitional Fossils have perhaps been the most researched and argued "evidence" claiming to prove macroevolution. This evidence is far from substantial. Transitional fossils are fossils believed to be of species progressing through time that are simultaneously evolving or even splitting from their original form. One of the most frusterating parts of proving that these fossils are really transitioning species,. .. are what is called GAPS. These gaps in archeoligical discoveries can be as much as a thousand or more years. This would be like trying to defend someones innocence of murder without a collaborating timeline or witness. I will further my points on this in later rounds. Comparative Anatomy is simply the similarites between seperate species. This process has been very widely used for the obvious reasons of comparing and grouping. Whales were shown to be mammals through comparative anatomy. However, as I said before, if a theory can not prove with out doubt, one would at least hope it could DISprove a counter. In my own personal belief, I feel it is no coincidence that animals have similar anatomical parts, they were created by one God, thus my belief is not disproven with comparative anatomy in support of macro evolution. It as well, going back to the resolution,. . does not show to be scientifically correct, unless perhaps, we concede that there are multiple correct explanations for the diversity of life on Earth. If we concede that there could be multiple correct answers,. . I would then have to contend the notion that Macroevolution is scientifically correct. In a nut shell,. . I dont feel it is correct. Certain aspects of it are impractical in the sense that we couldn't explain this type of evolution happening, it does little to disprove other theories, nor does it validate the idea that everything came from single, and/or created by a large bang. The fact is, to many random occurences. One theory after another, in an effort motivated more and more by the blind desire to NOT find out how it happened, but rather how NOT intelligent the design really may have been.