Evolution is real

I don't think theory means what you think it means in terms of science: Scientific Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Therefore, to be called a scientific theory, I would already have to be tested and retested, as I am certain it has been. As for evolution from one "kind" to another (for future reference, you can use a word from this list http://en.m.wikipedia.org... ) , this article ( http://scienceblogs.com... ) explains exactly that, I am not going to go through the whole process, it would take too long, but it is basically a process of mistake and error in the process of mistake and error by the part of your body that can happen causing one of the sides to have missing sections that are added on to another part of the DNA. If you need clarification on what I am talking about, the link is right there if you want to read it. As for it being "real", I already addressed what a scientific theory is, and that it has been proven, and there is in fact sufficient evidence to prove that evolution is fact... That is unless a better scientific theory comes along and explains more than evolution does, proves evolution wrong, and has more supporting evidence than evolution has, and I would challenge you to find a scientific theory that fits the criteria. If you do manage to find said theory, then the debate is as good as over, and you have as good as won. I would disagree, because I would not have to prove what the common ancestor is, I would only have to prove it exists. (Here is some more evidence macro evolution exists that I found while searching for proof of a common ancestor http://www.talkorigins.org... ) Here is an article attempting to prove there is a common ancestor: http://www.scientificamerican.com... this article basically says that having one common ancestor is 10^2,860 more likely to be what happened than the next most likely theory (the one you proposed in your last statement). Does this prove with complete certainty? No, but it is such a big likelyhood that it may as well be rounded to 100% and call it a day. You are right, micro evolution does not prove macro evolution, but what I have stated above is how it would work AND a scientific study that proved with practically complete certainty that that is what happens. I would lastly like to point out that your last claim (the one that could have had me serving you victory on a silver plater) lacked sources, and therefore lacked sufficient credibility and evidence to prove it, and therefore, I will have an easy time rebutting it by finding a source that says otherwise and has some proof. An here it is, thank you Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org... for making it so easy to find, the first life to be found in the fossil record, and the next few oldest fossils, were some of the simplest life forms to exist (this also might add to the proof of a common ancestor, but I am not going to say it directly does, as I don't really need more evidence for that) backing up that there were no complex life forms before evolution