(If there was a genuine finding such as that, it would falsify evolution right then and there.)
As I understand it, there have been such findings, about 28 incidents I believe.
(how evolution theory has is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times advantage over random chance.)
Doesn't macroevolution rely on random chance?
28 incidents that cannot be explained by some geologic action? Or just 28 incidents where we just don't know the details with enough certainty?
I suppose I set myself for some kind of "gotcha" here, but 28 incidents where the geologic record is weird doesn't seem surprising out of the hundreds of thousands of sites explored for 200 years. That, and creationist science sources are so very lousy. Which is understandable, since they already know their conclusion, they're merely looking for enough evidence to support it.
Doesn't macroevolution rely on random chance?
No more than you rely on random chance in your drive to work every morning.
Granted, there's is considerable randomness in exactly who is in the car next to you. There's some randomness in the mood of those in the other cars, and whether or not they'll smack into you. But in the end, randomness is not *the* method you use to get to work, even though it does play a small part.
Evolution, same thing.