All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

This is laughable. Pro has not counteracted my argument at all. The level of evidence I am requiring is easily obtainable, for example, with the theory of gravity. If I drop something, and it falls, I can say a force has acted upon it. I have just conducted a controlled experiment testing the theory of gavity. Evolution can conduct no such test, and as such, can not be put on the same level as the theory of gravity, and should be dismissed until it can do so. I can indicate a causal relationship in the case of gravity. Evolution can not indicate a causal relationship. You cannot make that assumption. You don't know that perhaps some outside force other than natural selection is what resulted in the changes in the fossil record. You are clearly inexperienced in the workings of science, probability, and logic. All I need is to show that the premise of the theory is flawed. Nothing else is required. If the premise is flawed, the theory is flawed. By showing how it is not proven that natural selection is the reason for the development of earth's organic history, I have shown the flaws in the theory of evolution. By laying out how such flaws may be remedied, I have even helped your case. The fact that the process of remedying your flaws requires time and advanced technology is not my fault. It may be impossible at the moment to prove a causal relationship. When it does become possible, if there is a proven causal relationship, I will have to admit defeat. But because such a relationship is beyond the scope of Evolution as it stands now, we cannot accept Evolution as fact. You aren't going wait for a million years before you proclaim it as fact? Then you are working off of unverified assumptions, and therefore, have destroyed your own argument. I can indeed claim it is insufficient. None of the the three conditions you listed are required to show the insufficiency of the theory of Evolution. Wanna know how you could prove the theory of evolution has a causal relationship with the fossil record? Simple. Observe every species on earth's process of continued evolution throughout history. Until you present me with a flow chart listing the process of every species in history being selected for and against, the conditions which led to the traits we see in their DNA, and the resulting organism, of course all of this having been directly observed and document in real time, you cannot claim a causal relationship. It's that simple. I'll even make it simpler. Using an approximation of the whole history of every species as the sample size, show with alpha equal to 5% or less that evolution occurs in a statistically significant population. That's how a scientist would conduct the experiment. And evolution cannot conduct that hypothesis test. And that hypothesis test alone would still not imply causation! If someone were to conduct this very test, it would still run into problems with the degeneration of DNA, which would represent a confounding variable. It would, however, be a good step towards proving the viability of the theory of Evolution. Pro has not had a good argument against my main position from the beginning. He has failed to present the causal evidence. He has pointed incorrectly to modern day observations and attempted to extrapolate them back millions of years, something which is not possible to do without breaking scientific rules of conduct. Correlation is not causation. No one can prove evolution is the cause for the history of the development of life on earth. Until we can prove that, we must not accept Evolution as fact. Doing so would be illogical, as it would run against the accepted rules of mathematics and logic. My task was not to prove anything. Rather, it was to lay out and then defend my position. I have done so. And Pro has failed to undermine my argument. Regardless of your personal views on the matter at hand, please evaluate this debate on the conduct and persuasiveness of the arguments for both sides.