Generally necromancy is frowned upon I thought, but here goes:
1) It takes a minimum of reasoning to determine what you are looking at, so by this logic facts are impossible. After all, it is reasoning to conclude that because one end of an object is level with the end of a foot-long ruler, and the other end is level with the other end of the object, that the object is one foot long. I would consider that a factual observation, not an inference or a deduction.
2) This forum is quite clear on those matters. Religious people take issue with the theory arbitrarily and ignore available evidence at will.
3) No, facts do not have to be repeatable. It also, strictly speaking, does not have to be agreed upon. A theory does not have to be testable, it has to be predictive. Evolution is quite capable of being predictive while being both "micro" and "macro", and is not ambiguous in definition. (Just because you don't understand something, does not mean something is not understood or defined.)
Think about gravity; we can pretty much factually determine how objects behave through experimentation, but we don't have the ability to go back in time and measure how galaxies behaved prior to our existence as reasoning beings. This does not mean that gravity, which is both micro and macro, is not a fact simply because we lack data in the past.