evolution

A. Is there a source you can refer to for an explanation of evolution in clear language?
on. I heard a lecture in which it was claimed that microevolution is a fact and cannot be disputed.
But it is claimed there that there is no evidence of macroevolution. If we find several stages of a human being, say, in archaeological excavations, there is no proof that they evolved from one another. This is just a hypothesis. It is possible that a species existed separately and the inferior species were exterminated.
Especially in light of the fact that, as you stated in your book, the probability of evolution occurring is zero.
As far as I understand, there are two ways –
Your book claims that if something doesn’t turn out to have happened, it proves they planned it.
And another way is that it didn’t happen at all and it’s all just a hypothesis because the probability is zero.
{ For example, if we find the house of a person we don’t know and on the table there is a document from the bank stating that he has a billion dollars in his account
And then there was a diary in which he wrote that he won the lottery on such and such a date for a million dollars, and the next day he won the lottery again for exactly a million dollars, and so on for 1000 consecutive days.
Should we assume he has a billion dollars in the bank because of the circumstantial evidence that he won the lottery 1,000 days in a row, or should we assume he is simply the owner of a successful business?
And according to the evidence from his diary, a more plausible explanation is found: he is referring in a sarcastic way to the fact that he made a good deal in which he made a million dollars that day.}
Why did you assume in your book that the first way is the correct one?