I never claimed it was "proof." In fact, I never use the word "proof." I am quite careful with my use of language.<quoted text>
No. I am pointing out that you are exagerating the reality of science.
Theory is not Proof. Never has been and never will be.
Please provide a single example of observered mutation of one advanced life form into an entirely different one. The virus/bacteria BS ain't going to cut it.
Perhaps a mouse population that was observed to transform into bats ?
First - why would you disregard bacteria and viruses? You don't consider these species? Are they all the same to you because you cannot see their differences and don't know enough about their populations to differentiate among them?
That's not a my problem thing. That's a your problem thing.
Most recently, E. coli evolved to digest citrate in the lab. E. coli is defined, as a species, as not being able to digest citrate. So...that's a mutation that led to a new species. This took 5 years in the lab and hundreds of thousands of generations.
Second, in 1972, Jean demonstrated evolution of a new symbiote. She housed an amoeba and its bacteria parasite together in an isolated environment for five years. At the end of that period, the bacteria had lost its parasitic genes and the amoeba had lost many of its life support genes (replaced by the bacteria). The two had become a symbiote.
If you discredit the above, as you do with bacteria, as somehow not supporting evolution, you are demonstrating that you do not understand that evolution is gene frequency change in gene pools over time.
Third - 11 rabbits were released in Australia over 150 years ago. There are now 4 species of rabbits there.
Fourth, yes, the word species is basically a categorical error on the part of human language. I explained this in a previous post.
Fifth - the evidence from genes and fossils demonstrates phylogenetic relationships between species. We know that Homo and Pan are more closely related than either is to Gorilla. We know that all apes and monkeys are equally related to all bats - and less related to any fish species.
Your demand for direct observation here is absurd. The fossil and gene evidence is overwhelmingly in support of our current taxonomies and that "species" evolve over time.
Now you can deny that all you like - but until you produce another theory capable of both explaining the existing evidence and unifying all biological sciences, then you don't have anything to stand on.