Macro Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

I apologize for the forfeit last round but since my opponent forfeited as well I will ask the voters to ignore it and vote based solely on arguments and evidence presented.“My opponent asked if I implied that 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.”True and this debate is about reasonable doubt and not absolute proof. I was just pointing out that different levels of proof seem to apply to different things.To address the link between Orangutans and humans, it is quite possible that the species brought up is merely a mutation of one of the other species and not a new species itself or it possibly is a different species but again though this would be making an assumption any way you look at it.“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.”Your evidence does not prove a connection but merely assumes it. I also touch on this more in the following paragraph.“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.” It could but also doesn’t mean it will. Take for instance car manufacturing. A Honda Civic is very different from the Honda Odyssey although the civic looks even more like the Accord. They are even more different from any of the Honda motorcycles. They all have a common manufacturer. However, they have commonalities, mostly do to what is street legal but the point is that the same thing applies. Animals have similar components even if they are vastly different and some are more different that others.Break down of DNAA tooth showed DNA decay over time. [1] Consequently the rate of decay would not allow for the time required by evolution and still have the DNA be available to be observed in the specimen. If they cannot do it for mummies that have been dead for not much more than 300 years they wouldn’t be able to do it for fossils that have been dead for ostensibly much longer. [2]“This is completely false, whether they are negative, neutral or positive depends on a lot of things”Here are just a few things that go horribly wrong this some of these mutations:Duplication can be a catalyst for cancer. [3]Frameshift mutation plays a part in a number of diseases including Tay-Sachs Disease. [4]Also, to add, Down Syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. Yet another example of a genetic mutation that is not beneficial for evolution.“The horn lady didn't have a horn, it is a tumor which looks like a horn. And there's another big difference, you're born with atavistic traits, she wasn't born with a horn.” While the horned lady was not born with the tumor, the six fingers example still stands as it is present at birth, therefore by your assertion, it is a residual evolutionary trait but I know of any primate with six digits on their hand.“True, we don't have DNA from it, but I wasn't using DNA to show it's relatedness with whales.” The answer is very similar to ones I have given to the other similar questions you asked about related species. Assuming anything other than what we can observe is just that, an assumption."Elaboration given upon environmental selection"If an animal that survived in the water has to now survive on land, it will die off before such a mutation would be able to occur. If an animal ate a fruit that grew on certain tree but then the tree died off in the area the animal would not be able to form a new digestive system before it died out.Mule reproduction“So again you take another step back in an argument?”I honestly don’t know what you mean.Your source video states that natural selection is not in fact a random process. If it is not random then it is calculated and intentional which would mean there would have to be an intelligent force behind it. Yes, idea of God or some sort of intelligent force behind it all is a complicated idea but so is the idea that complex organisms originated first from non-life up through single celled organisms merely by mutations that happened to occur. In conclusion, to assert that evolution as a theory should be given as much credence as other theories, even though it does not meet the same level of scrutiny is neglectful. It is based largely on assumption and conjecture. By using the scientific method what we could come up with is at best a hypothesis with no known conclusion or an unprovable conclusion. Thanks again to my opponent for this debate.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3 http://www.cancer.gov...4 http://www.jbc.org...