Evolution is an undeniable fact!

Although i am not really satisfied with Con starting first and ignoring my rule,but i would put that aside now. Looks like i will be doing a rebuttal in this round too. First of all i want everyone to understand the definition for microevolution: Microevolution is any change in the heritable traits within a population across generations. What does it mean? It means that the parents pass on their own traits to their offspring,but they do so imperfectly. When the egg cell is fertilized by the sperm cell,half of the father's genome and the mother's genome combine to form a zygote. When the two combine there,they combine their half of genome (23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother). The offspring gets some traits from the mother,and some from the father (no wonder why they tell you that you have your mother's eyes and your father's nose). However if the fertilization was done perfectly then the offspring would be very identical to one of the parents or both. However we all know that this is not the case,and the offspring comes out quite different from both parents (although it keeps some traits),for example both parents have brown eyes,the child comes out with blue eyes. This was the result of the MUTATION during the fertilization. This means that some genes get their code for a very slight percentage. If we continue this throughout the generations of the population,we would notice that offspring will look even more different than before (in circle of one family of the species). So,any change in the heritable traits within a population across generations has occurred. It is true that many more people accept microevolution over macroevolution,but what those people fail to see is that microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same process! So when my opponent stated that he will be refuting macroevolution,but said that microevolution is an observable fact. By that it means that he will be trying to refute microevolution too? Macroevolution is microevolution on a much bigger time scale. Let me give you an example. So let's look it like macroevolution was incorrect. If it was incorrect, then mutations would never happen. Why? Well because if the species is going to stay the same forever,then the genes would never change (mutate). We can observe the fact that we share part of our genomes with plants (around 25%),fungi (around 40-50%),and other animals (from 60-98%) and from our parents we share up to 99.9%. So if our genome is getting more and more different from our ancestors,it means that the species do not stay the same. Example: I'll give you an example through our genetic codes,and i will represent those as numbers. Let's say that your parent's genetic code was 1111111111. (and way more,because our genes are way longer than this,but i will only use the small part. ) After the fertilization the mutation has happened and now your genetic code is 1112111111 (and repeating 1's). Then you have a child and that child's genetic code is now 1123111112 (and repeating 1's). You see what's going on here? The genetic codes are becoming more and more different from those of their ancestors. After millions of generations the code will be for exmp. 1564911193 (and repeating some different sequences because of random mutations),for now this would not be considered the same species as you were,because the code is so different. Remember i am just giving you an example. "In fact, research has revealed that their seems to be a species-specific limit on the number of mutations an organism can sustain; beyond this limit, the creature's genetic infrastructure collapses and the animal dies" Yes but this does not prove anything against macroevolution because it is based in a circle of only 1 generation. If that would happen,then the process of fertilization would fail to succeed. "The fact that macroevolution has never been observed outside of extremely controlled laboratory environments reveals the process's fragility. " I am assuming that my opponent wanted to say that process was not directly observable. And when my opponent stated that,i got an impression that he actually admits it is true,because it has been observed. But probably not. However,yes,the process is not directly observable because of the lifetime of the living being. Bacteria have one of the shortest lifespan of all the living beings,and it is easy to observe their changes,and also they reproduce every few hours. The time it takes for an individual to have offspring is very long to be observed,and consider the fact that more than 50000 generations to "come and go" for us to notice the changes. "Finally, the fossil record -- though frequently used to bolster the evolutionary theory -- is able to provide clear lineages for very few zoological groups (reptile to mammal transition, supposedly, is well documented). However, countless holes remain in the fossil data which should not be expected if truly every single extinct creature who ever lived is lying somewhere in the earth. " Those holes or gaps in the fossil records are necessarily there because the bodies (remains) of most of those extinct creatures could not be fossilized due to carbonizing the dead remains (that's where fossil fuels come from). There were no perfect conditions always for storing the remains which would become fossilized. This is the reason why fossil record is incomplete,but also there are many places on this planet that weren't searched.