First of all, evolutionists do not claim that evolution is progressive. Second, what's so "progressive" about a sixty-ton creature? There's nothing in anybody's conception of evolution that says that creatures should tend to get bigger. Third, there are physics limits to how large a creature can be, regardless of what direction evolution would go.
Really? Define "evolution", then. I believe it uses the term "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usu. better or more complex form". Did not Darwin claim man, through evolving, has his source from the single living cell? Is this not being portrayed as "progressive" by evolutionists?
Then progressively, from dinosaurs, there should be the evidence of a continuum of a chain of life which would produce more huge forms of life, yet it does not exist.
One cannot totally believe evolution from specie to specie without great assumption....
Az