[snowballinhell]

My apologies to all for the size of my last post.

The point is the only evidence we have to date is that there is vast variation within species, but not one shred of evidence of change from species to species. The theories proposed are really about the change from species to species not about how or whether variation takes place.
Darwin's initial assumption that traits are passed on from cellular experience was wrong, and that minute changes over long periods of time has yet to be proved as there is no evidence, that hole was filled by mutations induced by radiation or some form of segregation causing fast change.
The notion of no evidence being proof of a theory's validity should be absurd to even the most enlightened.

As I said in my first post I set out to prove the theory evolution true not false, but what I found was a very weak hypothesis put up on a pedestal and here we are 145 yrs later still trying to fill the gaping holes.

[donh]

The notion of no evidence being proof of a theory's validity should be absurd to even the most enlightened.

Oh, come now. There is a vast difference between "no evidence" and sporadically missing fossels in a vast sea of fossils that that show marked morphological continuity over monotonically increasing time in the geological record. That's like saying there is no evidence for gravity because you can't see any evidence of it operating in the space between galaxies.

If inductive reasoning over partial evidence is acceptable in astronomy and physics, it's certainly acceptable in biology.

[donh]

As I said in my first post I set out to prove the theory evolution true not false

Well, that's probably where you went astray then. It is just a theory, that's why we call it "The Theory of Evolution". Natural science doesn't deal in proof, just best guesses.

[donh]

The point is the only evidence we have to date is that there is vast variation within species, but not one shred of evidence of change from species to species.

As I just recently pointed out with examples, what there is no shread of evidence for, is the invisible barrier between speciation and hybredization.

Creationists make hay on a misperception that speciation is an abrupt natural barrier--it is not. Incapacity to inter-breed comes on gradually--naming different creatures differently is a human invention of convenience--it is not thereupon incombent on the creatures in question to, upon receiving different species names, refrain from mating.