[BroJoeK]

Salvavida: "Plug this hole: There is NO fossil record proving Darwin’s theory, and Darwin said he would be disproven if the fossil record fails to support his theory."

Of course, over the past 150 years many, many thousands of fossils have been excavated, analyzed & preserved for science.
Without exception, they confirm Darwin's evolution predictions -- all fit into a "tree of life" pointing back to common ancestors.
And the same is true of now hundreds of thousands of species' DNA which has been analyzed for evidence of common ancestors.

But of course, you used the word "proved" and in science no theory is ever "proved".
Strictly speaking, a scientific theory is confirmed when tests intended to disprove it fail to do so.
That's just science, it's the way science works, and you can complain about it all you wish, FRiend, but you won't change that.

You also don't have to believe any of it.
Just don't pretend that your own beliefs are somehow "scientific".

[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. 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.