Is there any viable, provable evidence for evolution

First, on the Biblical flood as a scientific and cultural phenomenon and evidence within the fossil layer: You make assumptions about the flood based on the deposition of fossils throughout the fossil layer, however you ignore the fact that a single flood event would create at most a few layers of deposition, not the millions of years worth of deposition in thousands of layers observable. Yes, small organisms are on the bottom, with larger at the top, but this is not because they could swim, but because they are separated by millions of years worth of geological events and biological evolution. In fact, if the individual species of fossils represented in the fossil layers are analyzed it can be found that they span multiple layers. So, in short, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. Not only that, but fish such as the titalic fish have been shown to conclusively prove that sea creatures developed legs to walk on land. In addition, it has been empirically proven that humans share a common ancestry with primates, one that dates back millions of years. As far as the individual examples of trees within coal deposits, it is important to understand that Coal is organic. It formed by the degradation of plant matter and their eventual degradation. Moreover, trees that died towards the beginning of a geologic period have ample time to petrify before being subsumed into a geologic layer, explaining the presence of petrified wood in organic substrate (Coal). In regards to your overall explanation of coal deposits, I call your attention once again to time frame. How can coal deposits exist in different geologic layers separated by millions of years if they were all formed by a single flood? Coal deposits can be far more consistently explained by the presence of bogs and swamps, which are also high concentrations of biomass which do not rely upon a flood for which no evidence exists. Not only that, there are several regions and faiths which do not tell of a great flood. Notable examples include much of Asia, especially the example of Buddhism, in which there is no flood or creation story, practitioners are encouraged to use reason and contemplation to determine the truth. To take into account the fruit flies point, it is important to explain how evolution is measured. Evolutionary scientists use a unit called the Darwin, which is essentially change in an organisms character by a factor of "e" over time. The average rate of change in the fossil layer is .6 darwins, whereas in certain situations, called "Colonization Events", something called the founders effect can introduce rates of change as high as 342 darwins. This is due to genetic separation from the main population causing regressive alleles to emerge. This proves that rate of evolution is highly dependent on genetic isolation, and thus that rate may change wildly. However, to respond more directly, fruit flies are the result of a long term evolutionary span, and as they have adapted fully to their existing environment they fall into one of these evolutionary gaps, it would take a colonization event or a near extinction to trigger an enhanced rate of evolutionary change. Meaningless mutations have no effect on overall Darwinian change. In response to your criticism of Atavisms, you fail to realize that atavisms are not purely physical, they are facilitated by regressive gene sequences that fail to be eliminated. The evidence that they resulted from DNA regression comes not from theories as to why atavisms emerge, but as directly verified DNA observation, regressions were detected in organisms with atavisms that are not present in regular species. You, as the instigator of the debate, have the burden of a viable counter-theory. Without a counter interpretation, any criticisms of evolution are invalid as they do not rest upon any alternative. However, as you mentioned the biblical flood, I will be assuming that you base your criticisms upon a Biblical frame of reference. Now that I have effectively defended evolution, I will present arguments to debase the underlying theory behind your claims. Ultimately, this debate rests upon 2 theories of origin, that of macro-evolution and that of intelligent design, at least of initial members of the animal gene pool, which still takes into account the observable effect of micro-evolution. In order to evaluate these two theories it is important to recognize that an essential aspect of proof is the existence of Scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is not merely a conclusion drawn from a fact,it is the creation of a hypothesis that can be extrapolated beyond it's original context to understand that which cannot be empirically tested. Macro-evolution draws it's roots from the original observations of micro-evolution by scientists such as Charles Darwin. This short-term and empirically verifiable concept was then condensed into a scientific theory that could be applied to the overall question of origins. Creationism on the other hand, does not have this same scientific consistency. It accepts the empirical concept of micro-evolution yet denies it's logical and scientific conclusion. Thus, as macro-evolution is not only verifiable empirically through the Fossil layer, colonization events, the common ancestor, the titalic and atavisms but also holds up to fundamental scientific principles, upon which we base the MEANING of scientific proof itself.