I'm confused -- if we "can't find any evidence" for our position, how do we keep posting the evidence? For example, I know we've posted this to you at least a dozen times now (in response to the many times you've asserted that there was "no" evidence): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
so they keep posting just so stories like this one that has no facts, no evidence, but says that evolution has been proven again.
Okay, I'll bite -- where does the above article "say that evolution has been proven again"?
Scientific predictions are made either about things which may occur in the future or things that have never been observed. This is neither, this is a story about something which has been observed and is already known. It is not a prediction, it is not science,
Where does it purport to be a "prediction"?
It's an announcement of a model which incorporates known processes and conditions to accurately match known historical transitions.
it is an attempt to cover up the fact that the Cambrian explosion completely destroys the theory of evolution as the evolutionists Gould and Eldredge claimed.
You're being unclear here -- are you claiming that Gould and Eldredge a) claimed that the Cambrian explosion destroys the theory of evolution, or b) their claims about the theory of evolution were allegedly destroyed by the Cambrian explosion?
Either way your claim would be incorrect, but I'd rather not spend time refuting the wrong one. So let me know which you meant and then I'll refute it.
To make up stories about something which is already known is not science. Computer models can prove anything and are thus not evidence. The article is nonsense.
As for the rest, you know exactly what I meant. Whether you try to refute it or not is your choice.