Emphasis. Which is where I figured you would get mixed up. Sorry 'bout that. No, I do not think there is indisputable proof. I do think that the person you quoted said in their opinion there was more evidence for the theory. I do think there is solid evidence yes. Controversial evidence? Yes, but perspective shouldn't cancel it out I don't think. Maybe I am wrong on that though (the definition of evidence, and whether or not it is "solid"). edit: I suppose in a court of Law I wouldn't have much evidence unless I called Oda to the stand to explain the cells to us. As we don't ever seem to have irrefutable facts for our theories however, I do not think it is fair to say that we cannot use this as "evidence" for our "theory" ~~ and that in such, there is the most to point to this theory. Where the previous posters opinion should be somewhat accurate if not his personal view on things.
Since all the "evidence" is ambiguous and can be twisted and turned into whatever you want I didn't think it could be called evidence, regardless or not if he used "in my opinion". I just felt that the use of "evidence" was tossed around rather loosely.
But I might be wrong here, maybe you can call that evidence despite it being used by both sides to convince the other your view is right even if the two sides are mutually exclusive.
Edit: Dude! stop bolding both for emphasis and for correcting spelling errors.