I don't see the evidence produced so far that is proving the theory
And you won't in the future either, because evidence
supports ideas, it doesn't
prove them.
And scientific theories, by definition, can not be
proven only
supported. This, too, has been explained to you countless times already, yet you still continue to repeat that falsehood as if it is a proper objection.
The evidence you have been given supports evolution theory very well.
Now if you want to say that there is a theory, and evidence of the theory, frankly speaking, I don't see any evidence of whatever (not proof?) of the theory.
Which can only be by lack of looking. As you have been given several pieces of very good evidence in this very discussion. I know, because I was one of them. Among others, I gave you the example of how Tiktaalik was predicted and discovered, matching the prediction. Your state of denial is getting tiresome.
Or theories. Of evolution. Evidence (such as a fossilized skull) may seem to fit into the theory, but since the theory basically works on micro and macro changes (i.e., evolution), I don't see the evidence of that.
Tiktaalik was predicted from a mega-macro evolutionary perspective, as it is a transition from sea-life to land crawlers.
First, there was only life in the sea. Then, there were animals on land. The theory therefor predicts transitional sea/land animals that must have lived in between those two era's. Researchers then estimated what that period was exactly - and they based their estimation on everything we know from dating fossils and evolutionary history. Then they looked on a geological map for rocks of that age, which would have been in proximity of water and coast in that period. They predicted the kind of fossil (in terms of what traits it would have to have, being transitional from sea to land) they should be able to find there.
They went, searched and found Tiktaalik, confirming the prediction.
It doesn't get much more macro then a transitional from "fish" to land animal.
Something isn't right with the theory.
No, the theory seems perfectly fine.
After all....It succesfully predicts locations and traits of previously unknown fossils from species that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.
If the theory is wrong, how come it is able to make such predictions succesfully?
Here's why: since there is no micro or macro evidence of the theory in material substance meaning fossils showing these distinct absolute changes in progress
What do you mean exactly with "
fossils showing these distinct absolute changes in progress"?
Please describe the properties a fossil would have to have to say about it that it is "showing changes in progress"?
I have a feeling that it is based on fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
and since you say that the theories don't deal in proof, only evidence, it's like me seeing a dog and its theoretical predecessor (apparently they say dogs came from wolves), and then saying, well that's evidence that the dog evolved from wolves, is that something on the phylogenetic tree. (See? I remembered the term...maybe because I think the tree is kind of cute, even if I think it's not true.)
You are making absolutely no sense.
That dogs evolved from wolves, is not some assertion by some guy who thinks thaty they "look alike".
It is a
conclusion from data.
The same kind of conclusion as when we conclude that you are descendent of your grandfather based on DNA. If you give 200 anonymous DNA samples to a lab, 1 of which is your grandfather, they'll have no problem picking your grandfather's DNA. Because geneticists understand how DNA works and they can tell how various DNA molecules are related to one another.
This is how they can pick your grandfather's DNA from a pool of anonymous sampls.
This is how they can determine that what you think is your cousin, isn't actually your cousin.
This is how they can distinguish close relatives from distant relatives.
It is also how they can determine that extant dogs and wolves, have a common ancestor.
If you continue to refuse to educate yourself on how geneticists, biologists and paleontologists come to their conclusions, you're going to continue repeating such errors, continue missing the point and continue being wrong about this.
Now realizing that you don't like my uneducated terminology, and also realizing I am not majoring in the theory and fitting any supposed evidence of the theory in place as some do, I still hope you understand my point, even if you don't agree with it.
I understand your point alright. Frankly, at the end of the day, it's the same point as all other creationists.
"
I have my religion and nothing you can say or show me, will convince me otherwise. If science doesn't agree with my a priori, dogmatic, faith based beliefs, then I'll just assume the science is wrong."
That's it in a nutshell.
I'm sorry, but I have no other explanation for your continued reluctance to understand and learn what you are actually talking about, or your reluctance to acknowledge the impressive feat of succesfully predicting the discovery of the previously unknown fossil known as Tiktaalik and instead continueing to claim "there is no evidence".
Clearly, you are in a state of denial.
Clearly, there's nothing we can say or do to pull you out of that.
If you know about how Tiktaalik (just one example of many, btw) was discovered and then you still maintain that "there is no evidence", then really what is there left to talk about....
Only you can break down that defensive wall you have build around yourself.