Evolution is fact

I realize that I provided no rebuttals last round; that is because I automatically assumed that this debate was following default debate structure (R1 acceptance, R2 opening arguments, R3 rebuttals, etc). And also, I would like to clarify that the preface to my opening argument was not meant to insult my opponent in any way... the "ignorant evolutionist" quip simply represents the initial perception I had of the instigator after reading the resolution; however, from his clarifications, it is clear that Pro is more reasonable than that, being fully capable of distinguishing between an actual fact and a theory. Like I said, including the word 'fact' in the resolution seems to have been an honest mistake, which is why I am abstaining from taking the resolution literally.With that out of the way, I will proceed with rebuttals...In order to refute Pro's arguments, all I really have to do is show that there is still room for reasonable doubt even given the evidence for evolution that Pro has presented. R1) Vestigial OrgansFirst off, let's note that Pro has not at all shown why the existence of vestigial organs would indicate that the theory of evolution is true; there is no reason to believe that the existence of vestigial structures isn't compatible with / explained by / evidence for evolution's competing hypotheses, such as creationism. This observation alone serves as an adequate refutation of Pro's first contention.R2) Transitional FossilsI would like to begin by introducing the idea of correlation/causation fallacy: the scientific/statistical principle that the existence of a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. This principle can be applied to Pro's contention, here-- the fact that we have found of a few series of series of fossils that seem to represent evolutionary progression (i.e. correlation) does not logically lead to the conclusion that they actually are the result of evolutionary progression (i.e. causation). Furthermore, the fossil record can just as easily accounted for by other explanations of the development of life on earth; therefore, In order to soundly conclude that the fossil record is, indeed, the result of naturalistic evolution, Pro would have to provide causal evidence, which is unobtainable as it would most likely require reverse time travel. And besides that, there are actually outstanding flaws in the fossil record that cast significant doubt upon the factual accuracy of evolutionary theory, one of the most damning being the Roraima Pollen paradox:"According to Evolutionary Theory, plants didn't evolve flowers until around 120 million years ago... However, pollen has been found in Roraima rock...This undermines Evolutionary Theory because Roraima rock is geochronologically dated to be at least 1.7 billion years old...This is a paradox that even a child can understand, because it suggests that pollen existed over a billion years before the first flower existed." [1].R3) Observed SpeciationPro cites examples of observed micro-evolution. However, this does not really affirm the general theory of evolution; observing that a population's gene pool gradually changes over time doesn't even come close to indicating that all life on earth has developed via that same process. To make such a jump requires enormous amounts of conjecture and post-hoc rationalization. And besides, micro-evolution is wholly compatible with competing hypotheses such as creationism, so all in all, this contention does virtually nothing to affirm the resolution. In conclusion, I have shown that, even cumulatively, Pro's three contentions do not affirm the theory of evolution, much less 'leave no room for reasonable doubt'. The resolution is negated.[1] http://www.debate.org...