If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

Way wrong. Conventional thinking is that random mutation plus other sources of variation plus natural selection have no known boundaries or hints of boundaries, other than those imposed by physical possibility and the requirement that all changes be variations on existing structures. Although we will never have a detailed map of the origin of today's panoply of life from simple replicators, enough records have been found to establish beyond a shadow of scientific doubt that that's what happened.

Yes. I agree that a large pile of microevolution often becomes macroevolution, using standard biological definitions of the two. But macroevolution can be more than a big pile of microevolution. For example, Larry Moran on talk.origins often argues that macroevolution is not just a big pile of microevolution. He's not a creationist, there's good reason to believe that he knows whereof he speaks, and I can't completely follow his arguments; so I provisionally accept them. E.g see Larry A. Moran, microevolution lead to macroevolution?, and Macroevolution and Microevolution (closed debate).

True. however, your original sttement was "I think conventional thinking on this issue is that breeding and variation alone are not sufficient.". Mutations are variation, so your two statements are not equivalent. Well, one could argue that; physical possibility imposes limits. However, the limit of which we know are far outside the limts that creationists argue for. Let's see your argument that "often we see changes within species or groups of related species that change in the fossil record with the changes found within a range, meaning they change one way and then back the other, over a long period of time". I would be especaillly interested in seeing how you apply this to known hominid fossils, and Pelycodus.And you need some serious population genetics math to show that extinction would be less likely than observed if there are barriers that prevented change beyon d a certain point. There are,of course, barriers on the rate of change which accounts for many if not all extinctions. Well, the first thing you need to establish is the existence of a "cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation". So far all I've seen are unsupported claims and a few examples that do not establish the general principle that you are claiming.

Make up your mind. Previously you called it part of the "real crux of the matter". I haven't. I am requesting that you back up your claim with evidence, as you agreed to when you joined the forum. And, to establish that it is the norm, you will need far more than a few examples; and you will have to address those areas where we have a good range of fossils, such as whales and hominids. That is a range of variation, but that's no reason for concluding that we are limited to that range. I may have missed it .. but who claims that microevolution absent mutations could account for all of life today? Certainly no biologists do. Microevolution is largely mutations.

Seems pretty unlikely that it could. Well, I don't think that the existence of microevolution proves the existence of macroevolution. The evidence we have, including but not limited to the existence of microevolution, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that macroevolution has happened. I agree. Nothing can disprove special creation. That's one reason why creationism isn't a scientific theory. (I don't mean to deprecate belief in special creation; it just ain't science).

True. And responding what you did doesn't make it not so. What does make it so is the actual evidence and analyses that have been accumulated, tested, re-tested, and confirmed over many years. What could, but has not yet, make it false would be any of a large number of things … such as identification of a barrier between species or a limitation that prevents evolution from producing the variety we see. Not one or two examples, but establishment of an across-the board barrier to changes that can be produced by the mechanism of mutation (and other diversity generators) and natural selection. A lot of people assert a lot of things, but "scientific creationism" and ID boil down to but hot air (so far).We know that evolution cannot produce things that are physically impossible, and it can't produce things that are totally different from the immediately preceding things ... and that's exactly what we see. OTOH, special creation could produce anything, including things we are sure are physically impossible. I don't want it both ways; special creation, YEC, and ID are not science and cannot be disproved within the scientific arena. Heck, I can't think of any way to disprove them in any arena. You want to complain about people wanting to have it both ways, find some of those people and complain to them. To pick one of a multitude of examples, a modern rabbit skeleton in pre-Cambrian strata, with the fossil's provenance traced by professional scientists, and stratigraphy and multiple radiometric dating methods confirming the age, and nobody seeing any way it could be faked, would disprove the theory of evolution. The fact that evolution has taken place is data, not something that can be proven or disproven.Almost all of those who are knowledgable about the field accept macroevolution. Almost all of those who deny macroevolution are demonstrably ignorant of the field, and even more of those who deny macroevolution obviously (and sometimes explicitly) do so because of non-scientific and non-falsifiable presuppositions. I don't say you should accept macroevolution becasue so many biologists do; but you should admit that it's established beyond reasonable doubt in science. You want to change that, you're going to have to play it the scientific way.What do your think would falsify special creation? I'm not asking for anything that necessarily exists. Just something that you would accept as a falsification of special cration. If there's no such thing, you're not doing science. I somewhat agree with you. But if common descent were proven beyond a creationist's unreasonable shadow of a doubt, any "science" based on a literal interpretation of Genesis would be falsified. Of course, one would still be free to believe as one wishes … one just couldn't claim scientific justification for that belief. That includes ID as it's currently formulated.

You've missed a subtle point. I said "any 'science' based on a literal interpretation of Genesis would be falsified". You said "that would still not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis." Those are not the same thing.Science takes the most plausible and parsimonius explanation that fits all the data as tentative truth, always subject to future falsification. If common descent were proven beyond a creationist's unreasonable shadow of a doubt, or even if common descent were proven only to the point that it is now, a literal reading of Genesis would not (and does not now) fit all the data and would not be the most parsimonious explanation. That is one (not the only) reason that science will (and does) reject a literal reading of Genesis as tentative truth … because it just doesn't fit the data and it is not the most parsimonious explantion.However, a literal reading of Genesis might be true. Science cannot disprove it. Given an omnipotent Being or Beings and sufficient miracles, anything is possible.So I am definitely saying, again, that Science cannot disprove a literal reading of Genesis. But a literal reading of Genesis is not science.