Darwin admitted the obvious - no geological evidence supported his theory. Since the publication of ‘origin of the species’ there has been no factual corroboration, although many scientists claimed to have found irrefutable proof, they have all been exposed as hoaxes... I submit the theory doesn’t even meet the criterion of a theory, rather; it only carries the scientific weight of a myth... Grrr!
I think if Darwin had the knowledge of microbiology available to him, he would have had a much different view. Even then, Darwin never argued that evolution led to new species.
Darwin's understandings of geology, biology, genetics & evolution, etc., circa 1860 was less than 1% of what we know today.
Nevertheless, his basic ideas about evolution are confirmed daily by scientists working in related fields.
To pick geology, for example, radio-metric dating and plate tectonics (neither of which Darwin had any clues about) provide innumerable confirmations of basic evolution theory.
heterosupremacist: "Since the publication of 'origin of the species' there has been no factual corroboration, although many scientists claimed to have found irrefutable proof, they have all been exposed as hoaxes..."
You obviously are very misinformed about both science in general and evolution specifically.
Theories such as evolution are not "proved", they are confirmed or falsified by new evidence and experiments, which either match, or don't, what the theory predicts.
In the example of evolution theory, here is a partial listing of predictions confirmed by later found evidence.
heterosupremacist: "I submit the theory doesn't even meet the criterion of a theory, rather; it only carries the scientific weight of a myth... Grrr!"
And that is also the argument of Creationists like Ken Ham, but it is based on their own unique re-definition of the word "science" to include only what can physically be observed.
Like you, Ham calls radio-metrically dated fossil evidence of evolution "myth", since we cannot actually see the past to confirm it.
The truth of the matter is that Ham & you are free to believe whatever you wish, so long as you don't assert or imply that your version of "science" has anything to do with modern natural-science.
It doesn't.