Meanwhile, there are those who try first to draw the lines, then plot the points afterwards. Everything has to fit the worldview premise, or it’s deliberately ignored, discarded or attacked. Hopefully that isn’t you, unless you are a religious person after all.
Here’s a challenge: Prove macroevolution without grasping at alleged ‘microevolution’ straws and without public tax dollars funding your religion, that’s all I ask. And prove by your calm dispassionate ignorance of the latest popular anti-God theories that you are not an anti-God religious nut.
Given your superb grasp of science, you of course realize that no theory can be proved; theories can be supported, or they can be contradicted, by the evidence.
Second, why should you put a pre-condition on any field of science requiring that it not be supported by public tax dollars?
The rest of your post seems to be inspired more by religious zeal than any interest in science.
But the one thing I glean is that you are asking for evidence of macroevolution. OK, here you go:
Here is a detailed article on the evidence for the evolution of the horse (I have linked to the summary as I know creationists are loath to read too much science; I think they are afraid of being exposed to anything contrary to their beliefs).
First paragraph of the Summary: For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.
Take a look at the article and let me know what you think.
That’s nothing new, Sir. Wilbur would say, a horse is a horse, of course, of course.
I’m looking for missing links. The title of the old TV series Lance Link, Secret Chimp was a spoof about missing links. Think of Get Smart except with chimpanzees, narrated.
Now back to macroevolution. Show me the proof in the fossil record that we came from lesser creatures.
Come now, tell the rest of your story: that the very word "truth" must be expunged from science. For instance, we are not to use the word "true" when speaking about evolutionary science, isn't that so?