All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

Neither of your listed links work. Please remedy this.With regards to your first three sentences, the excerpt from my argument did not deny that we have observed macro-evolution in certain species. Rather, my assertion is that we have no proof that evolution is the cause of the changes in fossilized and past species. We observe an occurrence happening around us, and you assume it must be the cause of what happened in the past. Yet, we can not make that assumption. It is inherently unscientific to do so. That is my argument.It does not matter if I have not found such an occurrence yet. The theory has holes. That is just one of the holes. It attempts to generalize and compress millions of years of change into two steps, one species to another. It ignores any possibility that something may have happened in between the observed instances. Given your previous assertion that fossils are a rare occurrence, it would seem then that the theory of Evolution makes assumptions based on a small sample, relatively speaking, and not a population mean. As such, it is flawed! As to your oversimplification, the corrected form using my argument would be as follows: "We MIGHT some day find evidence that unicorns exist. Therefore, to assume now that unicorns do not exist and have never existed is incorrect."Who mentioned appearances? I didn't. I argued that the DNA from ancient fossils is subject to degeneration and even mutation. This renders any comparison between species useless. Unless you have a perfectly preserved and complete DNA sequence for every species in earth's history, transitional or not, you can not assume they are related to current day species. And such a preserved and complete sequence is unobtainable. Appearances did not factor in my argument. Why even mention them then?Do you understand what macroevolution and microevolution are? It seems to me as if you are operating with a different definition than the one I am accustomed to. Microevolution is the precise mechanism of evolution. Macroevolution is a large scale change in pattern overtime. Evolution has not existed as a theory long enough for such large-scale changes to be observed. Sure, you can show a relatively small number of examples of plant species and flies that have evolved in current day. But you can not say for certain that the process you witnessed by observing those plants and flies is the cause of the changes in fossil record. You have no proof that the process you witnessed is the cause of the changes in the fossil record, and to claim you do is dishonest. I refused your challenge because it is beyond the scope of my task,as laid out by your own rules. It is not relevant at all. Your assertion itself is illogical. The presence or absence of alternative theories does NOT influence the rationality of the theory. A theory can be completely rational and still exist in a world of alternate, also rational theories. Your system's evidence is flawed. I did not say that transitional fossils are "most certainly caused by some other process." Rather, I said that Evolution has not been proven to be the certain cause of transitional fossils. And you never will be able to prove it. To do so would require time travel and observation of all species on earth over the entirety of earth's history. To sum up my arguments then:1) I have proved that transitional fossils don't serve to validate Evolution, because the cause of their existence is not determined for certain. Evolution may not be the cause, it may be the cause. We don't know. To say anything else is unscientific.2) I need not disprove anything else. The assertion is that species exist they way they do today because of evolution through natural selection. It is the burden of those making that argument to show the causal relationship. Evolution can not do so at all. I need not disprove anything else.3) Again, an alternate theory's existence or nonexistence is irrelevant. I can claim it is false, and I just did. Evolution may take place in the current day, but no one can prove that the development of species on earth over it's history is due to the precise process observed today. Therefore, Evolution is insufficient in describing the development of living beings on Earth.The way you set up this debate meant that I had only to provide my arguments, and then defend them. An alternate explanation was not in the parameters of this debate. Furthermore, I have not misinterpreted anything. My logic is perfectly sound. My basis is the scientific law regarding correlation and causation. I have accurately described it, appropriately applied it, and defended it against your lack of understanding. You have not disproven my position. And you have still failed to show me that evolution is the true cause of the history of the development of life on earth.