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
The canonical definition is, "Change in allele frequency over time."
Did not Darwin claim man, through evolving, has his source from the single living cell?
Whether or not Darwin made that exact claim, it is correct.
Is this not being portrayed as "progressive" by evolutionists?
Not at all. "Progressive" means that it is directed towards some strategic goal. Evolution is all tactics: does this creature live or die? Each step that is taken is merely part of a random walk pattern; it's not going anyplace in particular.
Now, life on Earth has gotten more complex. This is merely the result of the fact that there are more ways in which life can get more complex than there are ways in which life can get simpler. Thus, any sort of random walk pattern will tend to produce more complexity, although certainly not always.
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.
Somehow, you've jumped from "more complex" to "bigger". The two are not the same. It simply is not true that there are more ways for a species to get bigger than there are ways for it to get smaller. Furthermore, even if there were, size (or any specific trait) doesn't just change arbitrarily. It will tend to whatever value maximizes survival for that organism, which may or may not be larger than it was in the past.