Evolution is real

Pro states that evolution makes logical sense but the fossil record reject Darwin"s tree of life (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...) Pro states that it explains how one species can evolve from another an which explains the diversity of life on earth but this explanation becomes harder to accept when we consider the a sudden burst of different species from the Cambrian period. Pro must explain how some complex organisms existed long before they should have. Pro states that evolution is backed up by scientific evidence. However, we must find the best explanation for the evidence. We do not have evidence that all living organisms evolved from a single cell. We have already discovered bogus explanations for the evolution of man. Australopithecus (Lucy) was introduced an ape that walked upright like humans. It was celebrated as the holy grail of evolution. Later, the French Science Magazine waved bye-bye to Lucy. The stories are similar with regards to the Piltdown man. I agree with Pro"s definition of a scientific theory but explaining what a scientific theory is does not make Evolution a scientific theory. Can he provide observable evidence? Can it be repeated in under Laboratory conditions? Science Daily states that scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation and experimentation. Does the methods used in evolution conform? Pro cites TalkOrigins as evidence for Macro-evolution. However, they are explanations. It"s like going to a junkyard and seeing some Ford cars viz. Model T and the Mustang. When dated, the Model T was found to be the earlier of the two. It was also at the bottom of the junk pile. Both the Model T and The Mustang have almost all of the parts in common. However, the Mustang parts and design has shown advancements/ improvements. They Mustang evolved naturally from the Ford Model T Car. Hey they even have the same emblem. If I did make that claim, I would have been immediately reminded that yes and evolution of the Ford Model T car did take place but it required an agency for this to happen. Pro"s argued that we share similarities with the ape. Saying that evolution is the best explanation for similarities within organisms is simply not interacting with other explanations out there. What about saying that we evolved from monkeys because we both have the 5th digit in our fingers. The Koala has the fifth digit too. I suggest that the explanation for common attributes among the organisms can be explained by a common designer - the Ford example again. Citing internet sites as references is not the best way to do a good debate because we have millions of sites that refute each other. More importantly just stating sites as an argument is not enough. However Haeckel"s fraud is also mentioned in one of your referenced sites (http://www.talkorigins.org...) The topic is "Evolution is real". I stated that the theory exists but the phenomenon is riddled with contradictions, fraud and explanations. There is no observable evidence. Even Miller"s Experiment had to assume an atmosphere that he did not observe. Pro did not respond to Gradualism vs Punctuated Equilibrium. Even if what Pro has put forward is correct, when you consider the conjecture and the fraud and the reversed claims " clearly Evolution has lost its realness. As the burden-bearer of proof, Pro has provided nothing. He cited an article attempting to prove that we evolved from a common ancestor. Notice Pro"s use of the word "attempt" and later Pro"s admittance that that it cannot prove certainty. The definition of Real has robbed evolution of its realness.