All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

Actually there ARE cases when correlation does imply causation (1)Actually, there aren't. You have further illustrated my point once again. The example you provided is a controlled experiment, the results of which are observed in real time. Evolution cannot conduct a controlled genetic experiment on animals that are dead. Because Evolution draws its support from the fossil record, it is impossible to conduct an experiment like the one in your example to show that there is a causal link. This is precisely my argument. You once again have proved my point. The presence or absence of a "better theory" does not remove or bestow causation. "I dont understand why the possibility of finding new transitional fossils invalidates evolution."Like so: You find a new "transitional fossil." Only rather than progress, the species seems to have regressed. Yet your dating methods place it chronologically between the two existing fossils. How do you explain it with evolution? The finding of the new fossil would invalidate the vital assumption you are making, that each fossil we find is from a species that is selected for survival by nature. Which brings me to your next point. You have no way of knowing whether the fossil you have was selected for survival or against. You may hypothesize that the creatures you see today are descendants of the fossil, but because you lack the ability to observe the course of that species' evolution in real time, you cannot actually say they are descendants. Furthermore, due to the genetic degeneration of DNA in fossils, you have no method of confirming their genetic link. It is not illogical at all. Bacteria are single-cell organisms. You cannot extrapolate the evolutionary tendences of single-cell organisms to multi-cell organisms. And even if you could, you still have not shown how evolution caused the changes in the multi-cellular organisms you dig up in fossils. Your challenge is irrelevant to the debate. If you wanted me to offer an alternative, you should have made it a rule. I refuse your challenge, due to it's irrelevancy. The burden of proof is on you to show me that my argument is incorrect. To sum up my argument so far:1) Evolution has not established a causal relationship between it's theory and the genetic development of fossilized organisms.2) Evolution cannot establish a causal relationship between it's theory and the genetic development of fossilized organisms without observing and recording that development in real time, which is impossible without time travel.3) Because Evolution uses the fossil record for support, and ancient DNA is prone to extensive degeneration and even mutation post-mortem, any attempt to genetically link a fossilized species with another, or a fossilized species with a living specimen will not have the necessary components to make the link reliable.For these reasons, Evolution fails as an explanation for the development of life on Earth.Your second link is broken. Lastly, I would like to remind Pro that wikipedia and forum posts are not considered reliable sources when it comes to an intelligent debate. My argument has no sources at the moment because I am relying on logic and a basic tennet of science to make my claim.