No they don't, and you fail to even attempt to demonstrate why you think they do.
The standard for evolutionary "proof" seems to be "if I can propose a method by which something conceptually MIGHT have happened, then you must believe that it DID happen, or else you are an ignorant, Bible-thumping fundamentalist looney."
The papers do not say that. Fantasize much?
This lasts until further experiment disproves the hypothesis, at which point they fail away and concoct a new hypothesis, which guys like yourself somehow seem certain of.
Whatever you say, chum. It might be amusing if you tried to provide an example, though.
That is not the standard for any other branch of science. You have to show how it happening, not merely construct an often untestable hypothesis of how it MIGHT have happened.
The relax, evolutionary science *does* do this -- including in the cited papers that you obviously blew off without reading.
Also, do you think you have ever committed a sin (I freely but shamefully confess that I sin dailey).
If by "sin" you mean a "transgression of divine law" (per Webster's), then no, because until all the world's religions can agree on a single set of "divine laws", I'm not convinced that there is such a thing. Until then they look a lot more like man-made constructs.
Have I done things that are wrong? Sure, who hasn't?