Macro-evolution Never Occured

EXTENSIONSa.) Mutation and Macro-EvolutionWe have a direct and clear definition of "macroevolution" i.e. "evolution on a scale of separate gene-pool." The excerpt quoted here (which is directly from the Institute of Creation Research) talks about how the O. Gigas is actually a "a large number of small mutations [which creates] macroevolution." Even if this is true, the opposition has totally ignored the fact that all O. gigas varieties studied by DeVries were unable to create the O. Lamarckiana, often signifying that a new species has transformed (and not just a insiginificant mutation). The opposition then goes on to assert that "mutation accumulation does not lead to new species." Let us analyze this claim further. From the same book that the opposition (or rather, ICR) quotes from, we then see that "entire sets of genomes...are acquired and incorporated by others" is the true cause of speciation and divergence. [1] To Marguilis's second quote, she also affirms (in the same statement) that "all populations grow at rates more rapid than their immediate environment sustains. What Darwin called natural selection is simply this fact of elimination: Never do 100 percent of the offspring survive to reproduce 100 percent."[3] Independent species could arise via many other factors apart from that of "mutation." Factors such as geographical isolation, plague etc. could also lead to speciation. Apart from this, a paper from Nosil (2010) attempted to study "how gene flow, hybrid incompatibility, selective advantage, timing of origination of new mutations and an initial period of allopatric differentiation affect population divergence." Using a relatively strong statistical model, Nosil soon found out that fixation of alleles (i.e. alleles becoming dominant) was possible "when (i) incompatible mutations have similar fitness advantages, (ii) less fit mutations arise slightly earlier in evolutionary time than more fit alternatives, and (iii) divergence occurs prior to secondary contact," which directly contradicts the relatively unsupported conclusion that mutations do not lead to speciation. [2] PS: MacromutationMacro-evolution does not in anyway assume macromutations whatsoever. The opposition says that "no satisfactory mechanism for macromutations has been proposed by modern neo-Darwinists." This is because evolution does not work by huge leaps; it works by taking small leaps. The opposition's account of macro-mutation also dwinds on argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence does not necessitate the evidence of absence. In fact, the only major observed instances of macro-mutation are not speciationsFor example, phenotypic changes (wings/no wings) in Drosphillia does not always necessitate speciation; they are still all drosphillias. They just have differing phenotypes. [10]b.) Gene Duplication and Macro-EvolutionIt has been affirmed by the opposition that "gene duplication occurs within the microevolution level." Firstly, neither of the sources provided to support this claim actually provides evidence that gene duplication is exclusively micro-evolutionary. In fact, Hobbs's paper states that "these results indicate that processes of recombination and genetic exchange contributed to variability," indicating the speciation was a macro-evolutionary possibility. Even if this is so, we could even go further. Studies have shown that at least 15% of flowering plant speciation and 33% of fern population are directly speciated via gene-duplication. [4] In sentient beings, drosphillia gene-speciation fills in the ad hoc missing link. Accordingly to a study by Ting (2004), shows that that OdSH gene, which arose as a gene-duplicant of the ucr-4 gene in Drosphillia, causes direct sterility between both types of hybrid drosphillia. [5] This result is consistent with Phadnis (2009), which shows that a similar gene causes "sterility...in F1 hybrids between the Bogota and USA subspecies of Drosophila pseudoobscura." [6]c.) Fossils and "Science"This is where the most absurd extension resides. Can we call the aggregate totality of the quotes presented by the opposition "facts," or should we say that it is something someone simply said? This is where the basis of the opposition's arguments fails to make any appeal whatsoever. They are merely arguments from authority.We are told that "macroevolution is scientific if the way it is interpreted is scientific." The substantiation for showing that macroevolution is pseudo-scientific is simple: "Macroevolution is interpreted via microevolution." Even if this is so, if macroevolution and microevolution are interdependent on each other, and since one is scientific, shouldn't the other one be so?The opposition says that "Science works on induction." This positivistic statement is clearly false. Science, from the logical positivist paradigm, works on induction-but from the widely accepted Popperian doctrine, science is a result of deduction. Science works based on a hypothesis which is falsifiable-all independent variables are attempt to falsify that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is falsified, then the hypothesis is rejected, and vice-versa. Where does induction come into this? Again, the "just-a-theory" refutation is an absurd refutation. Macro-Evolution is supported by a plethora of evidence, is both verifiable and falsifiables, and has made accurate predictions. Henceforth, it is a scientific theory-not theory which the opposition seemingly understands it. d.) EpigeneticsThe opposition says that "epigenetics does not support speciation in the macroevolution level." This is funny, since I never used epigenetics as a evidence for macro-evolution. Nevertheless, epigenetics does not in any way challenge macro-evolution. Although epigenetics at fist glance does seem to provide a challenge to Macro-Evolution, could we not look at soft inheritance as merely another aspect of F1 mutation? As Haig (2006) argues, "Epigenetic inheritance expands the range of options available to genes but evolutionary adaptation remains the product of natural selection of random variation." [7] For is it not clear that even if non-DNA changes are added on a genome via environmental factors, the original genome itself was a random variation of the original species? This directly challenges the opposition's (ulterior) claims that epigenetics is making macro-evolution unlikely. Apart from this, Lamarckian inheritance is not fully supported via epigenetics. For although changes in genotype due to environment is present, Lamarckian inheritance postulates transgenerational phenotypic and genotypic changes in F2 generations. [8]e.) Mendelian Genetics The opposition states here that "the Laws of Genetics are conservative." To a point, they are-however, Mendelian genetics (the Law of Segregation etc.) does not provide any evidence for the origins of genes. Quite simply, Mendelian genetics is a tool for determining the phenotype of a gene. What the opposition says here does in no way refute my case whatsoever. f.) TransposonsThe opposition says that "Con should have stated WHY did he think that transposons are stilla proof of macroevolution." Indeed, it would have been clear from that fact that since transposons always results in a reorganization of an allele, it would necessarily follow that new alleles would be evolved from transposons-this new allele creates mutation to ultimately achieve speciation. If the opposition thinks that this argument is too "a priori" for him, a paper by Kloeckener-Gruisem in 1993 notes that in "the plant Antirrhinum...the expression of nivea is now under the control of a different gene [as a result of transposons]." In the same paper, it was noted that "[these transposons] led to an unusual pattern of gene expression: increased levels of enzyme activity in one organ, decreased levels in another, and almost unchanged levels in a third organ," which signify a change in allele behaviour. [9]g.) Bio-ChemistryAgain, the opposition states here that "more recent studies have shown that the true genetic divergence between humans and apes is probably closer to 5%." Locutions de minimis non curat praetor; what the opposition has asserted is that humans and chimpanzees do have common ancestry, as the opposition has recognized that genome similarities between the two are ±5% divergent, yet (±5%) 95% same in genotypical ratios. CITATIONS:[1] https://books.google.co.th...[2] http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...[3] http://www.americanscientist.org...[4] http://newsinfo.iu.edu...[5] http://www.pnas.org...[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[7] http://www.oeb.harvard.edu...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://www.pnas.org...[10] http://tinyurl.com...