There is plenty of "proof" of evolution. There are very few branches of biology in which it is possible to work without taking evolution into account.
The reason I put "proof" into quotes is that, in science, nothing is ever really "proven". The best we can do is to gather more evidence; either the evidence supports the theory or it doesn't.
In the case of evolution, the evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming. That isn't to say that the theory cannot undergo revision as more evidence is accumulated; such revision is an integral part of science. When evidence just plain does not support a theory, the theory is rejected in favor of a better one--that is why we look to Charles Darwin as an early pioneer in biology, and not Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Darwin's theory best fit the data; Lamarck's did not.
Nonsense. The study of biological processes, structures, chemistry and mechanisms does not require any accounting for evolution. It is what it is by virtue of discovery. Conjecture may be useful, but proves nothing in itself. Quite the contrary, it is the evolutionist that depends on the discoveries of biology to support, refute or question their theories.
The best we can do is to gather more evidence; either the evidence supports the theory or it doesn't. In the case of evolution, the evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming.
The evidence is quite underwhelming and rife with fraud, artistic license (pictures of morphing species) and subjective interpretation. The excuse will always be the same; we know the evidence is out there, we just need more funds and more time to find it.
Most of your arguments in many of your postings were abandoned long ago and replaced by newer theories. You need to get up to date. You need to evolve.
Nonsense. The study of biological processes, structures, chemistry and mechanisms does not require any accounting for evolution. It is what it is by virtue of discovery. Conjecture may be useful, but proves nothing in itself. Quite the contrary, it is the evolutionist that depends on the discoveries of biology to support, refute or question their theories.
The best we can do is to gather more evidence; either the evidence supports the theory or it doesn't. In the case of evolution, the evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming.
The evidence is quite underwhelming and rife with fraud, artistic license (pictures of morphing species) and subjective interpretation. The excuse will always be the same; we know the evidence is out there, we just need more funds and more time to find it.
Most of your arguments in many of your postings were abandoned long ago and replaced by newer theories. You need to get up to date. You need to evolve.