"Also science has always been a little biased about many things with or without proof."
Since when? Science, by definition, is unbiased. And even if that's true, what does that have to do with evolution? Scientists could be the most biased folks in existence, but bias doesn't really come into it when irrefutable evidence is involved. Their bad nature won't make everything they think wrong, nor will it dissolve genetic, molecular, geological, logical, etc. evidence into nothing.
"My question to believers is, where is the proof evolution is real?"
Again, depends what you mean. In science there is no such thing as 'proof' - it's a poorly defined word and a highly illogical concept. If you mean proof by everyday standards though, then pretty much everywhere. I won't go through it all, but let's just mention the obvious fact it's an observed process.
"I know you say you can see species evolve through time or adapt to their environment but would you call adaption evolution?"
Yes. That's another word for it. It could just have easily been the theory of adaptation.
"If we came from apes why the different nationalities and where is the proof to support your claims. The burden of proof is on you my friend not us."
Again, there's a huge abundance of proof. I can only suggest looking it up or asking a question. The fact that our DNA changes over generations means it's a logical necessity though, so I won't bother going into the rest of the evidence.
As for the burden of proof though, that's on anyone making any claim. The burden of proof for evolution has already been presented, so the issue is irrelevant as far as accepting evolution is concerned. You make the claim that it's wrong, and as such you have to present evidence. Are you going to?