All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

"Evolution cannot conduct a controlled genetic experiment on animals that are dead. Because Evolution draws its support from the fossil record..."Actually, we HAVE seen evolution. MACROevolution (1). Not just microevolution (which should be enough, anyways, but I will get to that later.)Additionally, you still have failed to address all the other major proofs of Evolution (2). "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?"And have you found such an occurence, yet? No. You haven't. When you do, you can come back and we'll talk about it. But since that has NEVER happened before, it is not evidence! It is beyond me how you think that the POSSIBILITY of finding evidence against it automatically invalidates the theory! In that case, I can say that "We MIGHT some day find evidence that unicorns exist. Therefore, unicorns certainly exist.""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."That is ridiculous. We CAN say that they are descendants because just "looking alike" isn't the only thing scientists go off of to determine that two species are related. There is MUCH more that they have to do before deciding that (1)."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."YES WE CAN. The only reason evolution-non-believers are forced to recognize microevolution is because it is so easily witnessable. However, it is TOTALLY illogical to believe that and not macroevolution because1) Macroevolution HAS been witnessed a few times (2)2) We have DNA just like bacteria. Our DNA self-replicates and mutates just like their's, so if Bacteria evolve due to their DNA replication, WE DO TOO. ALL organisms have DNA. ALL organisms evolve. You can't believe that only tiny organisms evolve, if all organisms have the same type of genetic code. "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."No, you refuse my challenge because it is IMPOSSIBLE to win and you know it. It IS relevant to the debate because, if a system is...1) perfectly logical, and2) there are no good alternative theories, AND 3) that system has evidence, then it is only rational to accept that system as true. You are currently trying to prove the third point that there is no evidence behind evolution. And you are failing at it. You are just trying to debunk one form of evidence for it (transitional fossils) simply by saying "transitional fossils aren't proof of evolution because they were most certainly caused by some other process which I refuse to describe because it would be irrelevant to the debate if I did."To sum up my rebuttals to your arguments so far:1) You haven't properly proved that transitional fossils don't serve as evidence 2) Even if you did, there is still much, much, more evidence you would have to disprove3) Without giving alternative theories and proving that there is some sort of logical fallacy in the theory evolution, you cannot claim that it is false. "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."Yes, you are relying on faulty logic and are misinterpreting a basic tennet of science. Almost every scientist on the planet agrees that the patterns between various transitional fossils is proof of evolution, yet you boldly claim, without any basis at all, that it is not enough to serve as proof. SOURCES:(1) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...;(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...;