I'm saying macro-evolution occuring once does not imply it occured twice, yes. (this is simple logic)
No it's not. It's against basic logic.

No, all we know is the first term is a 1 like this a+b+c+d+e+f+g+1..., and we do not know if certain values are zero or otherwise. As far as I can tell, the most likely thing that would result from species adapting would be some type of equilibrium which is more like 1-1.1+0.9-0.8+1-1.
How exactly do you get negative changes? O_o

Let's see them create a living, breathing human then.
They've come close to creating living, self-replicating genetic material in a lab. Once they do that, the doors are wide open.

You could start by actually proving something, just believing it doesn't give you any proof. Proofs are meant to "convince the skeptic", they have done a pretty bad job of that so far.
Since you don't understand basic biology and no one here has the time or the patience to teach you, it's kind of tough.

If the main drive of evolution is creatures adapting to their environment, this equilibrium (oscillation or otherwise) would be likely to occur, because each being would stop adapting (except maybe to get something that changes depending on the weather (but that would change back afterwards)) once they had reached a certain state which fit in with the other creatures in that environment.
Yes, but the enviroments change. There could be droughts or earthquakes or other natural disasters, or food shortages which force populations to move to a different enviroment.
We are continually adapting. Becoming immune to chicken pox after having it is a form of adaptation.