Well then, prove them wrong and be done with it.
How do you prove a negative? This is on the order of being asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
There is just no good way to answer that question.
Which means, the question is being framed wrongly.
First, is to determine if the wife in question is in fact BEING beaten. Logic dictates that if this is in fact happening, there should be circumstantial evidence of the damage being caused by the beating. Sometimes, allegations of beatings are just that.
If this evidence seems to be supportive of the conclusion that a beating took place, THEN we look at HOW the beating was inflicted. What are the likely means by which this may have occurred? Was the series of observed injuries self-inflicted, was it because of some accident of time or place that resulted in the injuries, was it administered by a person known to the victim, or was it a a total stranger that showed up and for no reason known to the victim, assaulted and injured the victim?
Forensics is an interesting activity, almost more an art and based on intuition than it is rooted in real science. The science is only there to go back and rationalize the flash of inspiration that showed the potential connection.
Up to now, the hard science that is needed to PROVE or DISPROVE the “Darwinist” view of evolution has never been produced. Therefore, the question must still be considered open and subject to continuous review, as additional data becomes available.
Burden of proof, anyone?