Yes, you do keep singing that mantra. Darwin dealt with that objection to his theory and every other one he could possibly think of in the first edition of his book. In later editions--I have the sixth--he added a chapter on other people's objections which he had not anticipated and dealt with those there. Darwin's style of argument is thus particularly admirable because he tries to anticipate every argument AGAINST his theory. He ignores nothing away.
So you have ignored absolutely every item of evidence posted to you and are still chanting the same mantra with which you came onto the thread. It's hard to put a good face on this.
Darwin did have a paucity of fossil evidence for his theory in his day. He acknowledged that fossil land mammal ancestors of whales must have existed. His theory demands such. He predicted that such might be found. We now have a fine fossil series for that evolutionary change. He predicted that light would be shed on the origins of humans. We now have a fine hominid progression from apes to man. We now have a fine progression from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, etc.
So Darwin, if he was wrong, if he was faking something, would seem to be the luckiest charlatan in history. Every time we find a fossil that further outlines the tree of life that was vaguely visible in 1859, that's a fulfilled prediction of Darwin's. There's an announcement like that every few weeks at least.
That circumstance should be very hard to explain by someone who like you has a religious horror of evolution. Should be, but isn't. A liar for the Lord simply pretends that problem doesn't exist. Gaps, you see. Gaps, everywhere. Gaps! Gaps! As far as the eye can see, holes!! Holes on holes! Holes in holes! Whole lotta holes!
IOW, creationists do exactly what Darwin disdained to do: put on blinders and ignore away all problems with the favored theory. They could learn from Darwin, if religious horror didn't so interfere. Ethically, they couldn't polish his boots.
A very dishonest enterprise, creationism, mostly practiced by having grownup people playing childishly dumb and making very bad arguments in public. It gives everything it hides within, Christianity and conservatism for two examples, a bad name.
Now they're going after science education in this country. Scummy people doing scummy things.
Is ethics a function of nature or does intelligence struggle against it? By what criterion do we obtain a right to abort the fetus? By nature? Is it bone structure or DNA which determines the survival of the Jewish state?
I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.