Replies

You just demonstrated your lack of academic savvy. There is not ONE single paper submitted to American Academy of Science that has proven the issue which we speak of. If there was one, there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists waiting to write that paper for submission for peer review, to buttress their clam of evolution as the method for creation and advancement of species.

But there is NONE that has passed muster. Let that sink in. NONE.

There have been many disparate claims that the linkage has been found, but they have all been disproven: I speak of MACRO EVOLUTION, not MICRO. Know the difference.

To summarize, there is no evidence in the fossil record that proves Darwin's theory.

Know what you are talking about before you speak.

Salvavida: "You just demonstrated your lack of academic savvy.
There is not ONE single paper submitted to American Academy of Science that has proven the issue which we speak of"

Shame of you.
You're playing word-definition games, and I'm sure you should know better.
In scientific terminology, no theory is ever "proved", only confirmed by tests and discoveries made using it.
Strictly speaking, those tests confirm by failing to falsify the theory.
When many different tests have failed to falsify a theory, it is considered strongly confirmed and "settled science".
That is the case with evolution and many other well known scientific theories.

Of course, "settled science" is only "settled" until somebody discovers new data or conducts a new test which does falsify it.
Then scientists, as they say, go "back to the drawing board" to devise new hypotheses to explain the new results, etc., etc.

Salvavida: "But there is NONE that has passed muster. Let that sink in. NONE."

If your American Academy of Science is a legitimate group, then they are not out challenging scientists to "prove" evolution.
Basic evolution theory (descent with modifications, natural selection) was long ago confirmed by many different tests, and has never been seriously falsified, so it is long considered "settled science".

But you can't "prove" such a theory, and every legitimate science association knows it.

Salvavida: "There have been many disparate claims that the linkage has been found, but they have all been disproven: I speak of MACRO EVOLUTION, not MICRO. Know the difference."

No, nothing about basic evolution theory has ever been "disproven".

As for some alleged difference between the process for micro versus macro-evolution, there is no scientific difference, it's exactly the same thing -- evolution over the shorter term (micro) and longer term (macro).
People who claim to see some difference are being deliberately deceitful, imho.