Evolution is proven to occur

Rebuttals continued: My opponent's desperate argument A. Source Vs. Source desperation It appears Con wishes for for me to enter into a what I believe argument with him over the definition of a theory, as I previously stated: "I'm willing to admit a scientific theory has some room in it's definition for change in all deifnitions I listed, and the wikipedia definition you listed. I'll also allow the voters to decide which side they think is most appropaite for this debate instead of just saying your data is wrong/innacurate." I was hoping Con would accept this so we could move onto actual debate, but for whatever reason he believe his sources should dictate the outcome of the debate over mine, he clearly used the texas sharpshooter fallacy[1] by cherrypicking his definition of a theory. B. Fake Fallacies desperation 1. My opponent claims that I have shifted the burden of proof onto him this is false I have proven that evolution occurs during this debate, summarized my argument, and list sources (simply to simplify data, using your logic I presume all definitions are a part of this supposed "fallacy" also.) I would only like for him to give a refutation. 2. My opponent listed 3 supposed fallacies that were also misused and didn't apply to me, I haven't commited any of the 3 fallacies he accused me of commiting. C. Deception My opponent has said: "While I appreciate the variety of hyperlinks provided by Pro with the hope and desire that Con should take on the burden to browse through and complete an argument for Pro - Con cannot oblige Pro's desire for someone else to make Pro's argument for Pro. Pro's reluctance to post factual evidence being supported by reference merely underscores Pro's inadequate understanding of the topic." He has said this not because their is a lack of evidence or because I have made a bad claim, but rather he desperately wishes to disprove my claim by any means necessary. I have written my claims, summarized them, and then given the reader resources to back them up. I expected Con to atleast write a decent refutation to my claims such as microevolution, macroevolution, and Fossil Proof. However through this debate he's prefered to participate in deception of the reader in a desperate effort to avoid actual debate. D. Side Argument My opponent said: "To take the first case, if a prediction agrees with the results of an experiment, does that mean that the underlying theory is true? " Indeed, this is why science goes through repeated testing and is proven correct by vast amounts of evidence. (With little to no evidence against) My opponent said: "The logic of science does not permit us to make that kind of strong inference." It most definetely allows for inferences, if data shows evidence and logic then it may by all means be proven. For example gravity can be proven by the vast amounts of data available on it's existance meanwhile their is little to no data showing gravity doesn't exist. E. Closing Statements I feel this debate was a one-sided affair in which my opponent has based his entire argument off of the texas sharpshooter fallacy, and would like to note that I have indeed given proper evidence to show that evolution is proven to occur through this debate. Proven: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc. [2] (this was also listed in round 3) Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...