Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Rebuttal: Evolution does not state that we came from apes. However, it does say that we have a common ancestor with apes, and that our common ancestor was ape-like. However, let's not argue about their differences, because there is little. A proof that we share a common ancestor with apes is the transitional fossils between an ape-like creature and humans. [Source: http://talkorigins.org...] A large amount of these fossils demonstrates that there is no missing link between them and us.The argument about giants is hard to answer, because con has not specified which species it is, and whether or not there is any proof for their existance.Next, I would add proof of evolution to meet my burden of proof. I will prove both micro and macro evolution. Point 1: Fossil EvidenceThe logic of my argument will be presented in this form:Premise 1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see transitional fossils.Premise 2: We see transitional fossils.Conclusion: Evolution is (likely) true.Justification for Premise 1: Evolution states that organisms can change over time. Those organisms can be, sometimes, fossilized. If species X has the ancestor species A and is the ancestor of species B, then X shares some traits of both species and a fossilized X can be considered a transitional fossil.Justification for Premise 2: Transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates to humans have been found. [1] In fact, there are no known gaps between dinosaurs and birds. [1] This falls in line with the predictions of evolution. Also, if we assume evolution to be true, then every fossil is a transitional fossil, between two or more species. However, the transitional fossils do line up, even if we do not assume evolution to be true.The conclusion follows from premises 1 and 2.Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)Definition of a species: "Related organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."The logic goes like this:P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.P2: We see new species forming.C: Evolution is (likely) true.Justification for P1: Evolution predicts that new species can form. Justification for P2: Two examples of new species will be listed.1. GoatsbeardsGoatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced. They interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2]2.Drosophila paulistorum Drosophila paulistorum, a type of fruit fly, had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.The Conclusion follows from the premises.Point 3: Observed MicroevolutionP1: If evolution is true, then microevolution should happen.P2: Microevolution happensC: Evolution is (likely) true.Justification for Premise 2:An experiment, done by professor Lenski over 20 years, found that a population of E.coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, despite the fact that E.coli were normally unable to do so.[3] A later study done in 2012 isolated the exact mutation that caused this, proving that no contamination has occured. [4] This is, by definition, microevolution, as no new species has been created.Conclusion:Observed Marco and Micro evolution, as well as fossils proving that evolution has happened in the past, means that the case for evolution being supported by scientific evidence is strong.SOURCES[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://rationalwiki.org...[4]http://rationalwiki.org...