The evolutionary theory is accurate

I would like to jump right into the counterarguments, in no particular order, you bring up fossils and how there are just to many missing links to jump to the conclusion of evolution, i would contest that on two level's,one biologically, and the other geologicoaly. I would contest your argument biologically by saying that due to the temporary nature of life it is not only possible but likely that an organism will completely deteriorate before it has been siting dormant long enough to be fossilized by the relatively slugish forces of the earth, it is also likely that if it is fossilized, not enough of it will be left to identify it or reconstruct it. scavenger animals tend to remove bones from the body never to be seen again. geologically, the creation of a "readable" fossil takes require very special conditions, lots of pressure, but little enough pressure the skeleton will not be completely obliterated in its early stages. completly oxygen free environment, over 10000 years even a half millimeter crack can bring outside oxygen can cause complete decay. also we destroy lots of not "read" fossils so we can travel at 120mph using a complex machine that creates it's kinetic energy by exploding dinosaur. also if look at on a ginormous timescale, the rocks move in and out of the mantle in an almost conveyor belt like way, many thing are destroyed in there and even the rock itself melts. ending the geological rebutal the earth is 8.27*10^14 cubic kilometers, if i fish in one bay for 10 years and never catch a carp, do i assume carp dont exist? we simply haven't dug into enough to say that missing data is proof of invalidity, it is merely proof of our tiny sample size and what we got given our sample size is actually quite supportive of the theory. Next you said "research has revealed that there 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"if the mutation is inherited it isn't actually a mutation in the child it is only a trait, blue eyes are an example of this, they branched off of a single person with a mutation causing low production of pigment in the eye's humans found it attractive the person had kids, they had blue eyes but it wasn't a mutation for them in order to be a mutation it has to, well, mutate from what it originally was it was always like that for them and therefore did not cause the instability in DNA backbone caused by the "3 and "5 being different lengths that you are describing. also you said "the fact that macroevolution has never been observed outside of extremely controlled laboratory environments reveals the process's fragility" i would say that the world is a big place and when your talking about a full earth full of organism and massive amount's of time, if it can happen at all, it will happen. also a mule, is a example of partially successful macroevelution the only downfall is that mule cannot bread, so you have a lifeforms successful in all but one way,produced from macroevelution,it leads to assume that fully functional lifeforms could be made. lastly you said "nor do I challenge your claim that microevolution is real" the two evolutionary principles micro and macro that is do not depend on each other so how is you statement different from saying "your claim the evolution is real" if you and i agree on the existence of microevelution am i arguing purely macroevelution? i cant do that because macroevelution is possible the most insignificant part of evolutionary theory out there though i do believe in it's validity. on to my additional argument humans have a HUGE amount environmentally triggered jumping genes( genes that move from one place on a chromosome to another and code for something different entirely im confident you knew that but it never hurts to be sure and onlookers might not ) almost exactly 50% of our genome is jumping so not only do we adapt genetically withing a single generation to different environments but the environment you are in when you conceive a child affects its gene's order ,well it only effects the sperms gene order, all a woman's eggs are made when she is a fetus.