Actually, what I was talking about is based on observation.
Forgive me, but I must register the strongest of objections to your assertion. I am not aware of any living humans or anything recorded by a previously living human that claims direct observation of evolution. All such claims are based on inferences from forensics. This means that patterns or alleged patterns associated with real objects in existence today (fossils, rocks, layers of sediment, etc.) are used to hypothesize about past events and real world objects. None of these past events is observable, testable, or provable. Please help me understand how this comports with the scientific method?
I understand the value of forensics and its use in solving contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous events, like a plane crash or a crime. However, in these cases we still have the real world objects available for study. In the case of the study of fossils and other aspects of the earth, we have only the imprint or patterns left behind. We have suggestive material, but not the actual materials.
I am truly baffled that scientists do not place such speculation and conjecture in a completely different realm. Such activity fits the patterns of faith and belief much more readily than science. Just because we decide how to categorize a “mess of stuff” does not necessarily mean anything can be deduced with certanty about how that stuff came to be, or, what predecessor stuff must have existed. We have a lot of “might haves and probably’s.” We do not have certitude. The very same disdain cast on religious believers in a Diety is rightly cast upon religious believers in evolution I would assert.
The very fact that you cannot prove this and must resort to ridicule of the sizeable numbers of those who disagree lends credence to this argument.