"I don't think I presented a "pro" position for anything. I have a position. But, we're on what your "evidence" is - are we not"
I don't think you have, either. The evidence for evolution is there.
Argument with no evidence is the specialty of those who attack evolution because their interpretation of the Bible leads them to believe evolution cannot be true.
Unless you can give evidence refuting evolution or evidence supporting a contrary position, you cannot honestly participate in the debate attacking it.
Well, you keep saying that; but, as I've noted - what you call evidence continually isn't much better than what this article presents and in some cases it's worse. You present a bone, then give us a book synopsis of the planet millions and billions of years ago .. based on a bone. There is a limit to the suspension of disbelief just as there is a limit to what you can get from a bone (and that's before discussing viability of samples and whether such exist). The wild books of hypothesis from your belief system are not evidence. The bones may be evidence; but, evidence for what is quite another matter. And especially in light of the great flights of fancy we're constantly entreated to as though they were fact (merely because they are worded in that fashion).
Lastly, no, you have your argumentation technique 180 degrees reversed from the rules of logic. You present something and it is your burden to prove your case. It does not become my burden to disprove it. Scientists of your religious persuasion have been trying to use the term "science" to get by with using endless hypotheticals to construct their own belief system and force it on everyone else. The extent of their proof is their hypothesis. If you can't do better than that, you better surrender here, cause as I noted before, it's only going to get worse. America is fed up with the abuse.