Evolution is fact

Eh... I took this debate because I thought it would be fun crushing an ignorant evolutionist who actually equivocates theory with fact.... but since it seems to have been an honest mistake, I'll go ahead and debate this the way Pro intended. What I have to do to negate the resolution, then, is show that there is reasonable basis to doubt the theory of evolution's factual accuracy.Since I am wholly unprepared to make a legitimate devil's advocate case against Evolution (I originally would only have had to provide a short paragraph on the difference between theory and fact), and because I am scrapped for time, I am going to have to resort to simply quoting another argument I have heard against evolution which I found to be intelligible (http://www.debate.org...):"[The] argument that I am going to raise against evolution is from its supposed incompatibility with the Cambrian Explosion, which shall be defined, for the purposes of this debate, as the process when nearly all animal phyla first appear in the fossil record, occurring approximately 550 million years ago."According to Gish: 'In the Cambrian geological strata there exists a sudden, great outbursts of fossils on a highly developed level of complexity.' [1] However, there is a problem. There virtually no clear evolutionary precursors to ancestors of many the Cambrian phyla! Charles Marshall expands on this: 'While the fossil record of the well-skeletonized animal phyla is pretty good, we have virtually no fossils that are unambiguously assignable to the basal stem groups [putative ancestors] of these phyla, the first branches that lie between the last common ancestor of all bilaterians and the last common ancestor of the living representatives of each of the phyla.' [2]"It gets worse for the ‘evolutionist.’ The Cambrian explosion occurred in an extraordinarily short space of time! Carroll, for instance, argues that the explosion approx. 5-10 million years to occur. Bowring et.al argue that it is unlikely that the explosion took more than 10 million years to occur. [2] The suddenness of the Cambrian explosion is at odds with Darwinian phyletic gradualism... The rise of such complexity, demands an explanation of how the biological information relevant to the species, has been generated, in (relative to geological time) an extraordinary short space of time. Unless my opponent can give a cogent exposition of how this is so, through evolutionary processes, we can only assume that evolution, in the Neo-Darwinian sense, has been utterly falsified, due to the sheer impossibility of a large amount of biological information arising in such a short period of time..."Finally, contrary to what Neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology predicts, the Cambrian explosion shows a pattern of 'disparity precedes diversity,' meaning that virtually all the phyla were present in the Cambrian period, but display little variation between them. This is unexpected, if one were to affirm that evolution was true. Jim Gibson explains: 'This pattern is not merely different from what evolutionary biology predicts, it is the exact opposite of the expected pattern. It should take many small changes to add up to a large difference in the new type of animal, but small differences appear in the fossil record after the large differences…Evolutionary interpretations must explain why no new phyla have been produced since the Cambrian fossils were preserved. This pattern contradicts the expectations of evolutionary theory.'[3]"In conclusion, I have presented a compelling argument which, at the very least, casts significant doubt upon the theory of evolution. The resolution is negated.[1] http://www.sciohost.org...[2] http://www.darwinsdilemma.org...[3] http://grisda.wordpress.com...