Disproving evolution is one thing.
Pointing out that there’s never been a shred of evidence pointing to one species of animal turning into another species of animal is something different.
In other words, no frog became a lizard, and no lizard a bird, no bird a pig, no pig a monkey, and no monkey a man.
So, this bit doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does knock a couple of more pins from underneath it.
Hardly. The evidence is circumstantial but so very powerful that it is difficult to refute.
One would hardly believe India was once attached to Africa - but geological evidence indicates it was. The same with biological evolution.
>> So, this bit doesn’t disprove evolution,
And what’s to say “history” isn’t being altered and not necessarily by virtue of discovery of the previously undiscovered, but through the appearance of discovery of things that didn’t exist beforehand, or through ‘evolving’ scientific insight that realizes now what it could not earlier.