This gets rather funny. Several people, myself twice, have provided links loaded with positive evidence that evolution has occurred. You and others simply chant the mantra that there is no evidence.
This is a science of not seeing. It can teach us nothing.
When creationists do attempt to address the existence of mountains of what they say does not exist, they simply pretend that any lawyerly objection, any paragraph filled with negative-sounding terms concerning an object or an experiment makes it go away.
Think of the difference between a thing not existing at all and someone having some mud to throw at it, justifiably or not. (In the case of creationist assaults on scientific data, the mud-slinging is more willful misinterpretation and ignorance on the part of the creationist.) It is asserted that something reasonably to be expected, even predicted by a theory has not been found. This is said in the obvious hope that the statement can slip by unchallenged.
But the fallback trench is already prepared. If someone points out that this stuff does exist in museums and collections all over the world, not to mention any roadside cut near my house, maybe even gives some specific instances of such, then some creationist or even (Gasp!) an evolutionist somewhere has written something bad about the thing cited or something like it. Doesn't matter if the seeming criticism is valid or not, if anyone anywhere has sounded what looks out of context like a sour note, then a thing doesn't exist after all.
This is creation science, what we need in our science classrooms now to vault into the 21st century. (NOT!)
Sir, you can present mud in a courtroom. That doesn't make it evidence. You can present evidence, and that doesn't mean it supports your case. These are technicalities which I'm sure are lost on you; but, which are not lost on people who use their heads for more than hat racks. How you can make something appear isn't what makes the case. And as another similarly stated here - describing the walls of a nonexistant house doesn't present to us the house that we may touch and walk through. I Double-majored in Math, Majored in science because of my interest in physics. I do very much understand these ideas. Hype and theory are not proofs either.
So you can present something and call it evidence, but that don't make it evidence. Nor does it mean it lends you any support. I took logic too. You might look at the 1st chapter of any good logic book on how to construct an argument.
I see we've slipped away from the subject "origin of species."