The current evolutionary synthesis is not a scientific theory

Pro picked a definition of "evolution" that is at best marginally relevant to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The definition that evolution is "the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inherited traits" is used in a generic way, along the lines of "At the Westminster show, the sporting dogs have evolved over the years." In the sense of the given definition, it only asserts the proportions of traits in the population have changed, not why they have changed or whether the change is beneficial or not. Darwinian evolution goes well beyond the definition cited for the debate. To be sure, the theory that populations change is essential to Darwinian evolution, because for natural selection to work it's essential that populations change. Consequently, affirmation of Darwinism negates the resolution. After stating that we are only debating the definition of the resolution, Pro persists that in invalidates Darwinism. Pro introduced a reference to a paper that cites factors other than natural selection that affect changes in traits. Pro then claimed that Darwinism was invalidated, even though the paper itself asserts the contrary. What the paper asserted is that natural selection works despite other factors, and that understanding the multiple factors involved helps show how natural selection works in detail. Pro provided no peer-reviewed science refuting the conclusions of the authors, only his own suppositions. In attempting to debate Darwinism, Pro violated his own rule that only the broadly generic definition he supplied was the subject of the debate. While moving to Darwinism, he ignored the proven predictive power of selective breeding and natural selection and somehow convinced himself that Darwinism has no predictive power. Darwinism clearly predicts transitional forms, and the subsequent development of consistent genetic mechanisms for evolution. The theory that "the proportions of traits in populations change" is not an exciting scientific theory, but it meets the criteria of being both demonstrable and falsifiable. Pro conceded it is demonstrated. The falsification would be if the proportions of traits never changed in any population. Pro argued that's not falsifiable, because no matter how long it is tested, there might be a change in the future. However, "not happening" is a feature of many scientific theories. I cited the example of proton decay. Pro claimed that the theory being tested was that protons decay with some specified half-life. Nonetheless, an alternative to that theory is the theory that protons do not decay. It makes no sense to say that a hypothesis is valid science, while it's contradicting opposite theory is not valid science. I cited the theory by Newton and Galileo that the rate of a object falling under gravity does not depend upon its weight. Only a finite number of examples could be tested, yet it remains a scientific theory. Pro had no rebuttal. Pro did not respond to my broader examples. I pointed to the general problem of physical laws only being tested a limited number of times. Logically, cases untried might fail. Nonetheless, the laws are accepted as valid scientific hypotheses proven to become laws. Much of the debate was spent trying to figure out what Pro was trying to argue, subject to his 4000 character limit. I'll grant it was a challenging debate in that respect. Pro violated his own rules by trying to debate Darwinism while insisting that only his broad alternate definition, not the Darwinian definition, be considered. That is at minimum a conduct violation. Nonetheless, the resolution is clearly negated, and there is nearly unanimous scientific consensus that it fails. Pro gave references, but no scientific support affirming that evolution is not science. The resolution is negated.