Nope. "Proof" is not within the lexicon of science. Of course, in gore3000ese "evidence" = "absolute proof" so I'm not inclined to take your objections and claims all that seriously. Of course, if you stand by those definitions, then by virtue of the existence of evidence for evolution, it must have been proven absolutely. I also have evidence that you are a liar, a coward, and a hypocrite, meaning that those contentions are also absolutely proven. (Note to moderator: Previous sentence is statement of fact, not personal attack.)
The bacterial flagellum is the most famous proof, however there are many more.
And here I thought The Beak of the Finch was the most famous proof. I haven't read the book yet, but I have seen several fascinating reviews. Did you happen to glimpse them?
The story in the article about Newton is one.
Don't even bring up Newton. He's a charlatan, a fiend, and totally dishonest creature not fit to pick scabs from a diseased baboon. His theories of gravity have been thoroughly discredited, and no one bothers to use them anymore. There are more proofs against Newton than I can count. The wildly elliptical orbit of Mercury proves without a shadow of a doubt that Newton created his idiotic laws of motion to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church. All astronomical discoveries since 1827 have disproven Newtonianism.
Which reminds me, in your rush to insult you left this question unanswered.
Then evolution is not a fact, it is nonsense. Seems I must have given pretty strong and pretty irrefutable scientific evidence for both you and Junior to cower behind this skeptical nonsense.
As to the "Beak of the Finch", yes there are some reviews that gloss over the important evidence. Nevertheless the proof that the different 'species' of finches do mate, do reproduce, and their progeny are even more viable than the non-mixed 'species'. In addition, the book also shows that the beaks lengthened and shortened and lenghthened again in the short period of a dozen years. This back and forth shows that the changes were not due to mutation but to genetic information inherent in the species. In other words, as I said, the species adapted, they did not mutate as evolution requires.
Don't even bring up Newton. He's a charlatan, a fiend,
Insulting Newton because he disagrees with your theory and gave strong proof in the little story in the article against it. How low can you guys go! The man was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, a genius mathematician and decent man. Guess that is a good reason for you to attack him eh?