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

Please do not assume that I, a creationist, do not have a grip on any forms or principles of science. I am certified in embryo transfer, and work for one of only two private companies that offer cloning commercially. I specialize in operational consulting, helping producers utilize these things in their herds. I assure you, I have a great understanding, and I certainly understand observable, testable, and predictable natural phenomena. As I said, Transitional Fossils do little to support the resolution. A resolution that is vague at best. Transitional fossils, as I said can have gaps 20,000, 80,000, even a million years between discovered fossils records. Pretty unsubstantial in terms of evidence proving a case. Just off the top of my head, Tibial Hemelia is defect that causes cattle to be born without rear legs. No records of this happening exist all that long ago, however in the recent couple of years several hundred cows birthed calves without rear legs. This is a traceable genetic defect that can be corrected, but I can certainly understand the excitement a palaeontologist 80,000 years from now might feel when discovering the fossil of this amazing transitional cow. "My opponent makes no argument against the scientific validity of comparative anatomy, phylogenetics, cladistics, or any other area dealing with evolutionary relatedness." -- You made no arguement for. In fact you have not made any arguement yet. You havent even bothered linking comparative anatomy to support your own resolution. I do not need to argue against these things. Comparative anatomy is a widely used process that is not necessarily "evolutionary related." As I said before, comparative anatomy does not disprove creationism,(not that creationism matters in this debate), it can be argued that it strengthens many peoples theories in contrast with evolution. "First, no a scientific explanation or theory does not have to disprove all other explanations." -- Ok,.. SOOO, If the answer doesn't prove others wrong, and at least as of yet, proved itself right, why is your resolution CORRECT?? "What we decide to be the best theory is the one with the most evidence, and the one better at application." --Who is we,..? Why are you and the other we(s) the barometer of scientific correctness in regards to life as we know it?? I guess you are saying, I am wrong because you said so. Again, as of yet, you havent provided any such evidence or even applied. "My resolution and opening argument never stated Macroevolution is the ONLY viable scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I merely stated that it is scientifically CORRECT." -- Your opening argument didn't say much of anything. Nor did your second round. I mean, are you saying its the most correct? Again, its pretty vague, your correct, I'm correct, heck, lets all be correct. "Finally, your explanation that simply "God did it" is not only a crummy explanation, but not scientific." -- I am not required to explain any resolution, just refute yours. I mentioned God as an example to my theory explaining the coincidence in comparative anatomy. Again, I refute, you defend. "I have shown quite thoroughly the evidence for transitional fossils. I gave many examples, and shown the ridiculous argument creationists use for what it is: complete moot." --Congratulations, now all ya have to do is show why macroevolution is scientifically correct,.. or in your words, one of perhaps several other correct scientific theories explaining diversity of Earth's life. My opponent evidently feels that there are multiple correct answers. We can all be winners. I offered a realistic and practical explanation with my Tibial Hemelia example. "Finally, your explanation that simply "God did it" is not only a crummy explanation, but not scientific." -- You got me, God is not science, however at least I have one answer. Yours evidently is one of many answers that all can simultaneously be the correct contributor to the same conclusion. In closing,.. Voters, please note my opponent didn't bring new arguments to refute in round 2. My opponent has not put forth any case supporting his resolution at all. I am really only left to sarcasm. I have to go to the bathroom now,.. good bye.