The evolutionary theory is accurate

In your rebuttal, you addressed the issue of fossilization and suggested that the improbability of preserving a fossil for millions of years explains why the fossil record is incomplete. That seems reasonable (though I am no expert in paleontology), but that presents a problem. You are claiming that evidence exists, we just don't have access to it. Insofar as fossils do not reflect a smooth zoological lineage, they are not evidence for evolution. That would be like saying that a huge dinosaur exists, but has never been seen because he only roams about at night; that explanation is plausible, but woefully insufficient to establish the existence of such a dinosaur. In fact, you admit in your response that the sample size is tiny in comparison to the estimated population, and any statistician will tell you that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from such scarce data. Regarding the species-specific genetic limit, I apologize for not making myself more clear. I did not mean that individual organisms have limited capacity for genetic mutation (if they did, your point about mutations in the parents only being traits int he offspring would be an excellent rebuttal). Rather, I meant that the species as a whole cannot vary much from its wild type genetic structure without becoming extinct; that of course includes mutations handed down from parents to offspring. If mutations accumulate too much (typically long before any prospect of speciation), the animal dies. I think this is compelling evidence to illustrate the dubious claims of macroevolution. Your response to my claim that speciation has only occurred in controlled laboratory environments is to point out the expanse of the earth and the billions of years evolution would have to work with to produce that result. But what evidence do you have that it has actually exist? I can say that, because of the size of the earth, undiscovered tribes of aliens are living here; or that, through the passage of billions of years, the penny I found on the street formed through natural processes. But of course these claims should be dismissed until specific evidence is presented. You claim that the mule -- the infertile cross between a horse and a donkey -- is an example of macroevolution. But of course, as you know, evolution relies on reproduction; the fact that mules are infertile is not a minor point. On the contrary, it illustrates the genetic limits of a species (a horse can generate a mule, but can go no further). To clarify, I accept microevolution but reject macroevolution. Since the full evolutionary theory includes both of these processes, I think we are still is disagreement. You may think that macroevolution is an "insignificant part of evolutionary theory," but you have yet to explain why you believe in its "validity." Finally, your point about so-called "jumping genes" and their sensitivity to environmental cues, I think, is ineffectual. Our entire genomes are susceptible to environmental changes -- either through mutation or epigenetic modification. And I have no doubt that these responses to the environment contribute to microevolution. But the species-specific limit I described above still suggests that these "jumping genes" can only have limited phenotypic influence on us. (Additionally, if you would like to use "jumping genes" as evidence of evolution. showing that they operate in humans is useless since we are supposedly at the top of the evolutionary tree; you would to establish the "jumping genes" are active in lower life forms.) I look forward to your response.