Evolution is real

Let me summarize the issues so that the reader can trace back the threads of the debate. The topic is "Evolution is real". Let"s refer to the definitions. We agreed that evolution we meant (a) every living thing evolved from a common ancestor (b) where one kind evolved into another kind through natural selection. I then copy/pasted the Oxford definition of "real". I quoted Dawkins with regards to faith vs evidence. I also quoted Science daily in terms of what is meant by scientific method. Why did I do this? Firstly by quoting Dawkins, I showed what is meant by doing science. By quoting Science daily, I demonstrated what is meant by using the scientific method, by quoting the Oxford dictionary, I demonstrated what constitutes real. Now if we follow the debate critically, we will see that Pro has not demonstrated the realness of evolution. He states that it is a scientific theory but that cannot be based on the definition given by the Science Daily. He stated that evolution is observable. All scientists including Dawkins confesses otherwise. Dawkins stated "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that"s too slow, too small a timescale to see evolution going on." This means that Evolution is unobservable. Even Pro agrees with this when he stated that I had no way of know about the Cambrian Explosion. SO Pro has contradicted his/ her statement that Evolution is observable. What about experimentation? Can we test evolution where one kind evolves naturally into another kind in the laboratory? No we cannot and that fails the scientific method test. This follows that evolution is not a scientific theory. Pro asserts that we evolved from apes. There is no consensus on the matter. Some say that the chimp shares 98% of our DNA and some say 100%. What does that do for the study of genetics? Imagine if our ancestry was determined by common DNA structure. We should be behaving and living like the one we share common DNA with. Again, The Evolution hero (Dawkins) states that we are at bottom just dancing to our DNA. This means that our DNA decides our social conventions, our morality etc. The rational reader will immediately see that if we were dancing to our DNA and if our DNA is similar with chimpanzee and if the chimpanzee is dancing to its DNA, then we should be dancing the same dance. Reality differs. Pro stated similarities of our fingers and that of the apes. I refuted that argument by stating that the Koala also has a 5th digit. This was untouched. Pro asserts that Darwin had a lesser understanding of evolution as he does. Until Pro can show that he/she understands more (this debate demonstrates Pro does not), then Pro"s claim is incredible. I raised the issue of Haeckel"s embryos and cited the site Pro cited. Pro then states that the site may be unreliable. Can we have a meaningful debate when Pro quotes sites and then doubt its reliability? Can we even post links as arguments and then claim that the matter is resolved? Well Pro thinks so and that"s sad. In summary, I thank Pro and all readers for taking the time. I guess it is glaring that Pro (with respect) did not show that Evolution is real. We just saw contradictions, bizarre claims and in-coherence on Pro"s part. Therefore, my request is that we suspend any presupposition that we may have on evolution " be it pro, anti or agnostic and vote objectively. GOD bless you.