Is there any viable, provable evidence for evolution

First of all, you have my sincerest apologies for missing the last round. Now, as far as the biblical flood is concerned, evidence for a flood would not exist in the form of underground vents, but from the melting of the ice that covered much of the earth around 100,000 years ago. You also misunderstand my point on species, as they cross over geological periods, such as the nautilus, whose fossils date back over 500 million years, and still exist today. It's not that things line up well, it's that they don't. A flood event would leave all of the fossils in those layers sorted by size, with the smallest on the bottom and larger towards the top, and this is not evident. Also, in places where fossil order is reversed from what it would need to be for evolution, the folding strata layers, via seismic activity, would reverse the order of sediments. Insofar as the Tree argument, your point makes no sense. the trees could easily have stood until petrified and then have layers formed around them. Also, your argument seems to support the my argument, and doesn't serve as evidence for a flood. Ultimately, all of the evidence you suggest in support of a flood falls apart when you take into account the fact that the evidence you cite does not exist in one geologic time period, but is all across the board. A SINGLE flood event could not have distributed the evidence across millions of years of geological periods. You ignore common ancestry, DNA evidence that all species are caused by very small variations of a shared DNA code. For example, there is irrefutable shared ancestry between humans and primates, as well as the homologous structures in species that are geographically separate. Purely mathematical models also cite common ancestry as 10^2860 times more probable than multi-ancestor models. I am not using macro-evolution to prove evolution, the darwin is a micro-evolutionary unit, a theory that you claim to subscribe to. Mutations need to be relevant to environment and neccessity. Also, in the fruit flies study, all of the mutations they introduced had already emerged in the wild, White eyes being the most prominent mutation. Regardless, you were using evolution to disprove evolution, bringing me to my theoretical analysis: Without proposing a counter theory, you cannot disprove evolution as viable. as you express in the topic. With no counter theory, evolution remains the only viable explanation. You need to provide another viable theory in order to prove that something is not. When Galileo proved that objects fall at different speeds he created an experiment to test a hypothesis, the hypothesis being a counter theory upon which he based his experimentation. Galileo is also a perfect example of scientific extrapolation, using his results to prove aerodynamics. Micro-evolution provides empirically confirmed evidence for adaptation, which can then be extrapolated to the ideas of a common ancestor and macro evolution. Additional evidence, such as shared genetic background, atavisms, the titalic, and homogenous structures add additional credence to this theory. You MUST provide a counter-theory drawn from an equally valid chain of evidence and reason to prove evolution not viable.