Is Macroevolution a fact?

If not, then how close is it to a belief that resembles other beliefs from other world views?

Let’s take many examples in science that can be repeated with experimentation for determining it is fact:

Newton’s 3rd law: can we repeat this today? Yes. Therefore fact.

Gravity exists and on Earth at sea level it accelerates objects downward at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. (Notice this is not the same claim as we know what exactly causes gravity with detail). Gravity existing is a fact.

We know the charge of electrons. (Again, this claim isn’t the same as knowing everything about electrons). We can repeat the experiment today to say YES we know for a fact that an electron has a specific charge and that electric charge is quantized over this.

This is why macroevolution and microevolution are purposely and deceptively being stated as the same definition by many scientists.

Because the same way we don’t fully know everything about gravity and electrons on certain aspects, we still can say YES to facts (microevolution) but NO to beliefs (macroevolution)

Can organisms exhibit change and adaptation? Yes, organisms can be observed to adapt today in the present. Fact.

Is this necessarily the process that is responsible for LUCA to human? NO. This hasn’t been demonstrated today. Yes this is asking for the impossible because we don't have millions and billions of years. Well? Religious people don't have a walking on water human today. Is this what we are aiming for in science?

***NOT having OBSERVATIONS in the present is a problem for scientists and religious people.

And as much as it is painfully obvious that this is a belief the same way we always ask for sufficient evidence of a human walking on water, we (as true unbiased scientists) should NEVER accept an unproven claim because that’s how blind faiths begin.