Macro Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

These are the major points my opponent made, which I will respond to in the following chronology:- How is evolution not a cum hoc fallacy- theory?- Thermodynamics hinders evolution- Baraminology explains it better, biblical kinds being at the level of order or familyHow is evolution not a cum hoc fallacy-theory?It's not only evolution, but all of science which works that way. I ask my opponent to please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org... and reconsider this "argument" according to the goal of this debate. Also, you wrote following: "can we be only reasonably sure if I drop a rock it will fall to the ground?"You have to understand the difference between facts and theories. Facts are things like dropping a rock, watching it fall. Theory is WHY did that rock fall and why at that rate? In the beginning we had newtonian gravity to explain this phenomena, but newton was wrong, and a better model was proposed to explain it, relativity. Now, relativity is also a theory, and we can actually be quite confident that either quantum theory or relativity(or both) is wrong, because they are not compatible, but both of them explain each their facts in this universe, meaning, they both have evidence to support them. This, however doesn't mean that any of them haven't been supported beyond reasonable doubt.So what we're looking for, is multiple correlated data, which all supports evolution and not other models.Thermodynamics hinders evolutionWe already agreed that it all was in the DNA, in point 1-2-3. So the hindrance should be found there. I'm curious as to where the hindrance specifically is, but I can list some of the mutations I know happens, and you can see where I fail.- Transposons- Duplications (gene, chromozome and genome)- Subsitutions- Frameshift mutationsDuplications and transposons can increase the genetic material to which subsitutions and frameshift mutations can act on, to create new variations that keep a population stabil and able to adapt into various environments.Baraminology explains it better, biblical kinds being at the level of order or familyI will start out by pointing out that A) change in the original macro-evolutionary definition seems to have been occured, to change it from "between species" to "between families/orders"But since the change has been made to be "family" or "order", I assume you accept that everything below family level is related? Meaning, humans, in the family hominidae is related to orangutans and everything in between.But since you proposed "order" as the highest taxonomical rank, I will take you upon that, and challenge you to explain the following evidence that connects 2 orders.Fossil evidence shows numorous transitional fossils as predicted by evolution, between whales and land mammals, more specifically, ungulates[1][2]. We can see how there is very whale-like creatures that have legs, like rodhocetus, takracetus, gaviocetus, dorudon and even basilosaurus. The most interesting for me though, have been pakicetus, which lived around 55 Ma[3]. It was a hoofed animal, coincidentally with a distinct specialized middle ear which we today only find in cetaceans. This also fits with the molecular evidence which dates the divergence to be around 54 Ma[4]. To add to this finding, it has been discovered that pakicetus had increased bone-density, which is a sign of semi-aquatic behavior. To top it off with, we have atavistic traits in whales today, which shows a link to artiodactyls. This is whales which through a mutation, reactivates old deactivated genes, so that old features show again. This has happened, and what was reactivated was legs, and not only any legs, but legs with hooves! I'm curious, are these all coincidences? Can the biblical model explain this well? Or do you think it is most reasonable, based on these informations, to conclude that hoofed animals and cetaceans are related? This, of course isn't the only, but I think one of the visually best examples. References:[1] http://www.edwardtbabinski.us... [2] http://www.locolobo.org... [3] http://www.okapiland.com... [4] http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... Extra comments and questions You wrote:"My opponent goes on to present a correlation between changes in DNA over time and a change in species. However, this assumes that such changes are steady and continuous but that cannot be known for sure." No, I wasn't trying to present a correlation. What I was trying to test was whether or not enough time has been given, since the divergence time shown by difference pieces of evidence, to account for the amount of difference there is. The had been, and as an extra prize they correlated better than expected with the divergence time that had been calculated through other methods. It was simply to show that enough time had went, for those generational micro-evolutionary events, to be able to account for the macro-evolutionary event, which I think is nothing more than an accumulation of micro evolution. You wrote: "The environment acts on the frequency of the changes: to a certain extent" Elaboration would be nice. You wrote: "For the source videos 4 and 5 some of the examples listed on the reason they wouldn’t mate was that they didn’t recognize the dance for instance, however, as long as they would still be able to produce fertile offspring if forced together they would still be the same species." It is true that it was because they couldn't recognize eachothers dance. But as we both agree, genetic changes will keep happening, and as more time passes without them exchanging DNA because of a lack of recognition of eachothers dance, the more will they diverge and eventually, they wont be able to breed regardless of the dance. Regarding the mule, actually, mules have been observed to be fertile : http://www.eyeondna.com... Which is explainable by evolution. Because it is a very fluid change, meaning, it isn't being fertile or not. In the beginning its merely genetic isolation, so that they don't interbreed but they can. This can be because of geographic difficulties. Then as time goes by they begin to favor their own geographically near "individuals", like in the "fly dance scenario". Then as time goes by, they will only begin to be able to have fertile offspring 90% of the time, and as more time goes by and more change happens, that number will dive downwards to a very low number, untill they simply have diverged too far to be able to interbreed at all, meaning, they wont be able to get any offspring at all. I thank my opponent for his time and for his interesting thoughts, I hope he will enjoy mine too! ^^