There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

Yes I did state that definition as biology; but as you read my previous argument, I realised, and gave you not only the biology definition; but also the other definitions of evolution. My opponent still has not realise we are debating EVOLUTION. This is patently false. according to my opponents own source the biology definition is: "Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."RE: My opponent clearly did not read my previous round; were I gave the definiton of EVOLUTION, I corrected the definiton (bottom of previous round). I should win this debate based on this alone as this is known as "bate and switch" RE: My opponent got the bate and switch by someone else, so he plagerized, someone elses words, I know for a fact he would not of said this without help. Plus my opponent needs to realize this topic is about Evolution, there is no bate and switch. There is not a specific of evolution, the topic is evolution. When my opponent does this, it means he denys the evidence and proof gaven in my previous argument. He seen with his own eyes, he seen the Evolution definition I gave on the bottom of my previous argument. My opponent totally avoided, my whole argument. (I will give the source were my opponent plagerized a username muted words on the bottom of this argument) Further more, my opponent has not dealt with any of my arguments but merely dismissed them out of hand.RE: I have delt with all his arguments, if you look at the previous arguments, but then he said I dismissed them out of hand. Clearly my opponent is using the win over votes by scam technique, If my opponent said "my opponent has not dealt with any of my arguments" then "but yet merely dismissed them out", so my opponent just admitted I had dealt with his arguments, but if you look how I handle his arguments, I just debunked them. Like many debates on here does, debunks someones claims, its part of debating. Any votes for pro merely demonstrate a biased voter who fails to actually read the material. RE: My opponent is using the guilty technique, were he states a, oh if any voters, vote pro, they are biased, untrue. Voters this is an opinion, you see my opponent does not realise, voting goes off of who makes better conduct, who deals with ones arguments (which I have dealt with his arguments), also who shows proof, who educated the viewers, who used good conduct, (which I have gave great evidence of evolution, I know in the beginning I misread the definiton, but as all the viewers read, I did fix the definition of Evolution). =====================================================================================My opponent clearly have not place any evidence, he clearly has not speak of my arguments, he avoided everything I have said. So in this round I will give a description from the previous argument of evolution, to keep everyone up to date on what is going on. Before I do, I will like to take a second to review my opponent final round, my opponent just like his recent debates, he will use a sneaky argument. My opponent will copy and paste, quotes from the book of the bible, of Genesis. Now that would be an invalid argument unless, my opponent shows sufficient proof, this really accord. He would have to go beyond the book, to show actual proof. My claims of evolution, I have shown proof, I have explained, I gave a definition of Evolution (full definition bottom of 3rd round). Round 4 Conclusion:Evolution: Process of devolopment, change, growth, "mutation" stated my opponent. I gave the visual proof of evolution, I shown different definition of evolution, pregnancy is the best evidence we have of evolution. Sperm Cell + Egg Cell= a baby in nine months, Videos shows the change, the development, mutation, growth (evolution). Visual Evidence. Plants= Seed + Water + nutrients= change, development, mutation (evolves from a seed to a plant) growth, aka evolution. I have shown visual proof, My opponent has not gave any proof besides claims from a book, and christian sources, my opponent surely avoided everything I have said. He misquoted me not just once (Which I have fixed the misquote) but again he misquoted me. This bait-and-catch thing was said by another person the source will be on the bottom, but when he accepted this debate, he read the topic that is evolution. I never baited, my opponent was very aware of my arguments before he said something like that. My opponent failed to twice to refute my arguments, I refuted his arguments as we can clearly see. Source were my opponent plagerazed someone elses words, when he seen very clearly and was not baited, he knew what i was arguing. Then this was said 3 rounds after the beginning of this debate, so here is the source. Posted by Muted 1 day ago Aceviper, you're playing a case of bait-and-switch. Anyway, would you like to debate the topic of evolution in a molecules-to-man sense?http://www.debate.org...