Macro Evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief

I would like to begin by thanking pro for accepting my challenge and wishing him good luck. To begin I would like to reiterate my first definition I posted. "Macro evolution - Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. is defined on biology-online.org.- http://www.biology-online.org...; I would like to emphasize that in the definition it says "at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups". That is to say that there should be proof that there are formation of new species for it to be scientific fact. First i would like to start with mutations. 1.)Mutations are the driving force to macro evolution, evolutionary theory believes genetic mutations over time have resulted in all of the species being created dating back millions of years to the first organism. I propose two issues with this theory. A. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on. B. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism. I know of no basis for this occurring in history and believe this one of the most significant factors in qualifying or dismissing macro evolution. Next i would like to take statistics and probability into consideration. While agreeably in no way can statistics and probability prove or disprove macro evolution as a possibility, i believe it is significant in the discussion from a logical point to consider the chances and probability of Macro evolution being plausible. 2.)While there is a finite chance of the universe being created the statistics show its extreme unlikelihood. "Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University concluded that the chances of just this one tiny DNA molecule coming into existence over four billion years, with conditions just right, on just one of these extremely large number of hospitable planets, including the earth, as one chance in 10415.36 But this figure is also exceedingly beyond Borel's law, which says that beyond a certain point, improbable events never happen, regardless of the time span involved. " (http://www.ankerberg.com...) Fred Hoyle stated this- "Two thousand different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these even in 20 billion years. I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one of the many thousand of biopolymers (Life molecules) on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on earth. " 3.)second law of thermodynamics Macro evolution is contradictory of the second law of thermodynamics. Essentially the second law of thermodynamics says(and feel free to correct me if im wrong or you disagree) that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on. Pretty self explanatory how that contradicts macro evolution. 4.) the fossil record The fossil record would probably be the most significant evidence for Macro evolution....... if there was any evidence in the fossil record for evolution, over billions and billions of years you would think there would be some kind of transitional fossils found somewhere, sadly enough for Macro evolutionist, there are none. 5.) radio carbon dating Radio Carbon Dating is sketchy to say the least because of its presumptions of consistency (which i will go into more later if need be) In conclusion I believe there is no basis of empirical evidence to support Macro Evolution outside of mere speculation, AKA faith based, AKA a belief.