Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

"Pro correctly stated the definition,but then presented a straw man when mentioning "oranges into apples" since oranges and apples belong to a different order." Evolutionists claim that a dinosaur can evolve into a bird or chicken. This is synonymous to an apple gradually evolving into an orange over millions of years and cannot mate because they are entirely different species. The biggest flaw Con committed was when he criticized my definition over two species that cannot mate and reproduce. If you actually pay close attention to my definition, it says that microevolution involves genetic changes within the inheritance/population spectrum whereas macroevolution involves genetic changes outside the spectrum (which result in a new species). I stand my case with the definition. "Furthermore, pro is using only fossil gaps to prove his point, and fossils are just one evidence for evolution." Con fails to refute my counter-arguments regarding the ambiguity and subjective interpretations when it comes to interpreting fossils. I provided sources for why fossils that appear to have similar traits can be deceiving and problematic for establishing vivid, straight forward evidence. He also claims that I'm using fossils to prove my case. Actually, I have more to bring in the table. "However, we are not arguing concerning evolution itself, we are talking about whether it is a scientific theory or not. " In order for evolution to be considered a scientific theory, it must have independent, replicable evidence. The fact that the fossil record (including others that I'll show in a minute) shows ambiguous and controversial interpretations, Con has to provide reasons as to why they should really be considered evidence in order to call it a scientific theory. "Because specific beings have similar traits, there are also genetic "extra baggage" from our ancestry (atavism)." What Con does not realize is that macroevolution requires new additional genetic information in the DNA in order to create a new species. Microevolution, despite the changes being within the population, only involves change or damage information. Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc. either change or damage (damage is usually for mutation) in the DNA. There is no evidence that microevolution can lead to additional genetic information for macroevolution. Even Richard Dawkins himself couldn't conceive such thing "The "common ancestor" argument--If we came from a common ancestor with other great apes,when we examine our and their DNA,their DNA should reflect that...and it does." The concept that DNA from the non-functioning or pseudogenes is evidence from ancestors is only an assumption created by evolutionists themselves. Nowhere in the scientific literature did it objectively say what the junk DNA was for and whether or not it was really useless. Despite the junk DNA claims by evolutionists, there are peer-reviewed journals suggesting that junk DNA isn't really junk. Even science promoters in YouTube accept that junk DNA isn't really junk: As for the Chromosome 2 argument: that has actually been debunked. There is no evidence to even support the idea that Chromosome 2 was evidence for evolution. It's hard to explain why, so I'll just let the video down below do the work: Good luck refuting those counter-arguments I gave you, Con!