Evolution is fact

I understand your confusion. Thank you again for debating evolution with me.Vestigial Structures---(A small tip- “vestigial structures” covers all vestigial parts, while “vestigial organs” is much more specific)“First 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.”If you look back to my argument that presented vestigial structures, I believe I addressed why they are further proof of the validity of evolution. I’ll just go back over it so you don’t have to scroll around to find it.Although vestigial structures themselves are no reason to believe that evolution is plausible and likely to be real, the existence of vestigial structures are very expected if evolution is an actual process. It’s like “connect the dots”. The small dot that is vestigial structures does not create the whole picture itself, but is vital for the picture’s end result.Let’s go back to my last example about goosebumps and hair. If evolution really did happen, then it would make sense that when we slowly evolved to our more “human” like stage and lost most of our hair, goosebumps had neutral effect on our survival, and therefore stayed.If we were created, why were we created with random and useless structures? Pointless structures, useless chromosomes, random bones, etc.Transitional Fossils---“I 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 [geo chronologically] 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].”If evolution did happen, transitional fossils would be expected. And they are found.As for your Roraima pollen paradox:Claim: Pollen has been found in Cambrian and Precambrian rocks, particular the Hakatai Shales of the Grand Canyon. By standard evolutionary models, these rocks pre-date the evolution of pollen-bearing plants.Response: Most of the palynology work was done by Clifford Burdick, who had very little knowledge of geological techniques. Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981]. Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors:What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests. In particular, the Hakatai Shales have lava intrusions, so we would expect any fossil pollen in them to have burned up. [1]Observed Speciation---“Pro 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.”Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed [2]. (The source I originally cited had a section devoted to speciation, but I’ll link it again for your convenience)Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution. Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution. Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory. [3]My arguments stand.I want to thank you again for having this debate with me (and sorry if there are any editing or formatting errors, I copy-pasted this from google drive). You get a slight advantage because you get the last words, but that’s alright. Now it’s your turn, good luck![1] http://www.talkorigins.org...[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...