Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Thank you, jh1234I, for issuing the general challenge for this argument. I would like to ask if pro would like me to skip the final round so as to allow both parties the same number of rounds for argumentation? My opponent will also note that I will be using wikipedia as a source. They may rest assured that I will primarily use areas of articles which are clearly cited, but who's citations link to scientific articles that can only be viewed if one decides to forfeit a ridiculous amount of money. I hope this will be acceptable. If not, I will attempt to back up my arguments with other sources. On to the actual debate: The most obvious argument against evolution is that macroevolution (the origins of novel organism designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations and extinctions.) (1) has never actually been observed, despite scientists' best efforts to bring it about in a laboratory setting. There have been claims of the in-laboratory creation of entirely new species (usually defined as a group of organisms which does not normally produce fertile offspring with other groups of organisms and is not itself normally infertile) (2) through evolutionary processes, but most of these have remained unverified. The most famous example of the creation of a new species was with fruit flies, but this was due to the lengthy breeding of fruit flies to produce the microevolutionary change of a preference for mating in the dark (3). That is to say, the flies genetics would likely be compatible with other "species," but the slight preference differences made this unlikely. Furthermore, despite the fact that evolution dictates that there should be a continuous and obviously visible change from one species to another, to another, and so on in the fossil record. However, this is not the case. Paleontologists are continually unable to find any continuous fossil record that clearly illustrates the change from one species to another. Perhaps the most significant example is what is known as the "Cambrian Explosion." During this period, extreme numbers of species seem to have suddenly sprung into existence, with no evidence present regarding their ancestors. Richard Dawkins, perhaps one the the most well known advocates of evolution's scientific soundness, remarked that "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." (4) Many other examples can be cited, but that may beat at the point too hard. Finally (for this round), I shall address vestigial organs. Vestigial organs are often cited as evidence of evolution; and yet, the use for such organs is often discovered after it is proclaimed to be vestigial (for instance, the appendix and the tonsils were both thought to be vestigial, but we now know both to be useful in fighting disease). (5,6) If my opponent were to wish to use the concept of vestigial organs as evidence that new species arise from Darwinian evolution, I submit that they must provide an example of an organ that is definitively vestigial.Sources(1) http://en.wiktionary.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.blavatsky.net...(5) http://www.abc.net.au...(6) http://www.kevinmd.com... I breathlessly await my opponent's response.