Evolution is a fact

I appreciate you sending me the challenge. I have no problem with there being no voting. To start off, I would like to define Evolution. The key here, which I will get back to later, is that evolution is not the same as metamorphosis, or artificial/human enhancement. I would like to define each, to show the distinct difference between them. Evolution - "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. " Metamorphosis - "Metamorphosis is a biological process by which an animal physically develops after birth or hatching, involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation." Artificial/Human Enhancement - "Human enhancement refers to any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. The term is sometimes applied to the use of technological means to select or alter human characteristics and capacities, whether or not the alteration results in characteristics and capacities that lie beyond the existing human range." Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Now to my main argument - evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. "Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.". It can not be treated as a fact, if it is only a theory. Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now to my sub-arguments. These are arguments that further prove the notion that evolution is not a fact, but only a theory. 1) The argument made by a famous scientists know as Richard Dawkins is that we come from a common ancestor of a monkey. My question is, if this is true, how come there is no evidence of it whatsoever? Even if you claim it is thousands of years old, it would have fossilized, would it not? There would be some sort of proof of it's skeletal structure, or something. To quote from the web-page, "At each point Dawkins attempts to infer, from molecular and fossil evidence, the probable form of the most recent common ancestor and describes the modern animals that join humanity's growing travelling party". The key word is "probable". There is no guarantee. In addition, the only fossils that have been found, are not guarantees. We just assume they may be, we are not certain. The web-page states, "This means that, in terms of inquiry into the course of possible human evolution / the origins of our species, the Ardi fossil has displaced Lucy as being from the earliest "reliably known about" possible close human ancestor species.". The fossil found, as well as the previous one, do not prove anything. They can infer, but it is not 100% proof. Resources : http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.age-of-the-sage.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) It has never been witnessed. There is no evidence of evolution. Metamorphosis can occur, which is different as we know, but evolution has not. 3) There is the claim that we came from one old ancestor "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago.". It also states it as a fact, which I find interesting from Wikipedia when the next paragraph shows it is just a theory. Anyways, this is impossible. The reason I say this is because of logic. We have had humans around and documenting existence for thousands of years. Have we evolved at all yet? We still have some parts on our body that modern time we see as "useless". For example, the tailbone, or the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc. Many of these things get removed from people, or are seen as useless because they are never used. If we could evolve, couldn't we just get rid of these things years ago? Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... I will leave it to three sub-arguments for now. I don't want you to run out of characters (it happens to me all the time). So there, I would like to see your response to that. Also, understand that my reasoning for taking this debate is solely to change your opinion, it has nothing to do with votes. May GOD bless you.