Not exactly the same thing as saying that I find the evidence lacking in specificity regarding fossilized transitionals which would demonstrated conclusively that one species of animal "evolved" into another distinctly different species, now is it? I get what the theory is claiming, but don't buy all the huey. Please do not put your words in my mouth.
This is the internet, not some bar-room where you can shoot the breeze and deny you said stuff later and no-one can prove it.
Not exactly the same thing as saying that I find the evidence lacking in specificity regarding fossilized transitionals which would demonstrated conclusively that one species of animal "evolved" into another distinctly different species, now is it? I get what the theory is claiming, but don't buy all the huey. Please do not put your words in my mouth.
Your words, in that link, responding to a brief exposition of the theory of evolution: "Grand theory with absolutely no empirical evidence to support it." There is in fact an avalanche of such evidence. But you metaphorically shut your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and start chanting "La, La, La, I can't hear you." whenever it is presented. The molecular evidence and fossil evidence are crushing independently. If we just had either on its own it would be case closed (as indeed it was already regarded as case closed by biologists prior to the molecular data coming in over the last decade or so). But in fact we've got both; and they both say the same thing.