Macro Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

Cum Hoc useMy opponent asked if I implied tha causation can never be 100% known, and that is true. The challenge in this debate is to prove evolution *beyond reasonable doubt*, not to prove it to be the actual *Truth* as I can't do that with anything.No, I don't have to compare it to anything, besides the evidence, if it explains the evidence properly, then it can be accepted as a theory that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, however if a lot of evidence is in conflict, then it of course wouldn't be accepted as such. No other model is needed, besides, I'm already comparing it to your biblical explanation you have proposed of a "Kind". Also, your claim that the likely causation shown by multiple correlated data of macro-evolution cannot be observed or shown. However, this was exactly what I did in round 2 where I showed that we can take the causation of micro-evolution, and apply it to the macro-evolution between chimps and humans. And you never responded to my evidence, other than moving the goalpost to family/order, and now you're moving it back again to species level for the species I already demonstrated good reason to be related. Humans - Orangutans biblical-kind is on species level.To add to my previous evidence in round 2, I'll go into the fossil record, genetic and molecular evidence to show relationship between chimps and humans.MolecularCytochrome C has 10^93 different ways in which the amino sequence can be arranged, for a fully functional Cytochrome C. Common descent, meaning evolution, predicts a highly similar sequence between chimps and humans in this highly conserved gene, and as expected the chimp and human Cytochrome C amino acid sequence is 100% identical. The chance of this would be 1:10^93.[1]This could however be explained by a common designer, I'm well aware of. But a common designer would make another prediction according to my understanding. A common designer would explain this due to use of common design in his creation. However, this would mean that all those which are commonly designed by this common designer, should have the same amount of similarity by this argumentation. However, this is not what we see. If we take a look at homologene alignment scores, we can see that the similarity falls according to the relationship predicted by evolution, and not a universal design among life, as a common designer would predict.[2] Fossil record numorous of transitional fossils have been recognized in the human lineage. The best in-between transitional fossil being australopethicus Afarensis.Australopithecus afarensis(3.9-2.9mya)Australopithecus Afarensis, is a very amazing specie. This is because of it being a great intermediate between chimps and humans. For example, if we take a look at the feet, we can see, that they’re not quite human, because of the big toe deviating more than that of modern humans, but less than that of chimpsAfarensishttp://upload.wikimedia.org...Humanshttp://2.bp.blogspot.com...Chimpshttp://1.bp.blogspot.com...At the same time if we take a look at the pelvis and legs we’ll see the same thing.http://www.anthro4n6.net...http://www.answersingenesis.org...If we then take and focus at the head, we’ll see similar patterns, for example, dentals & jaws:http://1.bp.blogspot.com...and brain sizehttp://www.sbs.utexas.edu...Sizes of the brain and skull of the chimpanzee (top), Australopithecus afarensis (middle), and modern humans (bottom).And skullshttp://www.talkorigins.org...As it can clearly be seen. Afarensis, is a perfect intermediate.Genetic evidenceThere is multiple ways to make phylogenetic trees in genetics, in addition to the more common method which also show our close relationship to chimps and all the other apes[3] I'm going to go into ERV's. ERV's are ancient virus' which had inserted itself into a reproductive cell, and became deactivated, causing it to be brought into the genome of future generations. We can see how these ERV's has been inserted in the exact same locations. The chance of this being random in a 3.2 billion long genome is 1:3.2 billion^2 meaning 1:1.02400 × 10^19. Some have argued that they target specific sites on the genome, but even minimizing this to 0.1% of the genome still gives a figure of 1:1.02400 × 10^13. And this is just for 1 ERV, do not be fooled, we have more than 1 which we can make phylogenetic trees from, to show the relationship between us and the other apes[4][5].Are these, along with my 2nd round correlations, all just coincidences? I think these conclusively all together show that we are related, and that micro-evolutionary events could be the sufficient mechanism for macro-evolutionary events, just given more time.Break down of DNACould you refer to some sort of study? Because the only long term study I know, based on E.Coli over 50.000 generations show no such thing, and in fact did show multiple beneficial mutations[6][7].You wrote:"As for what you have listed, they are negative mutations or at the very least benign and actually demonstrate my point. Some of them are quite damaging."This is completely false, whether they are negative, neutral or positive depends on a lot of things, and you cannot just classify them all as neutral or negative, because we've seen positive mutations too. Both for duplications[8][9], substitutions[10] and frameshift mutations[11]. So I'm still looking for whatever you're claiming of a mechanism which stops evolution.Atavism and the Horn LadyThe horn lady didn't have a horn, it is a tumor which looks like a horn[12]. And there's another big difference, you're born with atavistic traits, she wasn't born with a horn. Besides, this was just one of the pieces of evidence. You didn't seem to comment on any of the transitional fossils nor anything else? And you did seem to have lots of charecters remaining to spend them on rebuttals.PakicetusTrue, we don't have DNA from it, but I wasn't using DNA to show it's relatedness with whales. So would you mind actually responding to that ? :)Mule reproductionSo again you take another step back in an argument?Cetacea-ArtiodactylaAnother piece of evidence that is quite surprising is that according to genetic studies, whales are closer related to artiodactyls than any other animal group.. hmm.. another coincidence?[13][14][15]Elaboration given upon enviromental selectionSo you would be okay to believe that an land animal adapted to run better in shallow waters? But what stops it from getting even better? What stops it from starting to swim instead because thats more efficient? What stops it from evolving into slightly deeper waters? Actually, nothing according to all the evidence, we can see exactly this happening in the fossil record through pakicetus which was slightly adapted to water, then to ambulocetus which was more adapted to takricetus and so on.I apologize if I've come off arrogant this time. I've just been slightly bothered with the lack of confrontation of my evidence and the moving of goalposts. Evolution lesson You wrote that animals become more complex or smarter. This is a misunderstanding, evolution has no direction and just selects according to the most well adapted, this could be the one with a smaller brain or a less complex being, but it could also be a more complex being. Whether or not complexity can arise is another question. I'll give some references which shows that it can in the comments.My references will be posted in the comment section.Good luck with the next response :]