That's not true. Darwin made legitimate observations with reasonable data that led to extremely far-reaching supposition. I have no problem with his basic conclusions about adaptation/natural selection. But his ultimate conclusion, namely that simple matter becomes complex organisms, is faulty. Even modern science acknowledges that since he had no concept of DNA or the details of biology as we know them today, he made serious errors.
Even you must agree that his suppositions about evolution are not provable. Based on the data he gathered, he could not effectively demonstrate that species ever changed one to another or that new species evolved from lesser ones.
Seems to me that we are at an impasse. That being - you insist that adaptation = micro = macroevolution, they are all one and the same, and therefore, in your mind, I pick and choose according to my belief system. I insist that adaptation = micro, which does NOT = macro, and therefore cannot convince you that my opinion has any merit.
Like I said before, no matter how much time you add to it, there is simply no evidence of one species changing to another. Not in the fossil record, and not observable presently. That is the issue.
If you believe that many small changes eventually make big ones, and that minor internal changes will eventually change the species altogether, point me to evidence of that. It must be out there somewhere, right? If not, please tell me why it isn't readily available, if not trumpeted.
Darwin himself said “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
Then we are at an impasse.
But it seems clear, you don't object to the theories of Darwin, except where those theories make predictions that contradict your faith.
So much so that you're left arguing that millions of little changes don't lead to a changed creature -- an obvious error that contradicts observed reality.
And that makes ya'lls position on Darwin and Evolution *very* contradictory.