No, I won't "go wild." What you are saying is a very typical misunderstanding. Scientific theories do not need (and actually cannot) be "proven." When you are looking at a picture in a textbook that shows the molecule of water consisting of two little balls that represent atoms of hydrogen and one bigger (and differently colored) ball representing an atom of oxygen, you are also looking at deductions made from an "unproven" atomic-molecular theory of the structure of matter. We "know" about these two kinds of atoms joining together in the 2H:1O proportion because such an idea is consistent with many observations. Same thing biological evolution. We don't literally see speciation, but we know it happens because it is consistent with myriads of observations made by scores of independently working scientists.ignatius said:Grace and Peace Heorhij,
But we have no evidence that species change on the macro level. We have micro level changes within species but no evidence that species actually change into new species right? You appear to believe that we have proof of evolution when, as far as I know, we don't.
I get the impression that this is a 'hot-button' issue with you so don't go wild on me. I'm just asking.