Thanks CTD for showing your understanding of how science works.

Yes, and note that what I say is that we can use what we know about evolution today to inform our understanding of fossils, particularly of what can happen to populations of organisms from generation to generation.

When you find an example of a scientific theory in any field that has been proven, be sure to post it.

Just one will do ... you can even pick whatever science suits your fancy (now you get to play avoid the issue and pretend it is something else again -- I'll expect pages and pages of bluster and silly icons).

We will ignore the rabbit hole of your ignorance of mutation and how that make separate subspecies, of DNA testing and why we can even do it between species, not just individual humans, you betray your fundamental ignorance of the small amount of real difference between a cell in one organism and a cell in another.

Of course, the fact that we can extend organ transplants to be not just between close relatives, but between species, would not have any relation to how closely related those species are would it? How similar the cell structure in the different organisms are.

Splicing plants is an old way of combining two different forms that has proven quite successful in spite of the large difference, apparently, between on type of plant and another.

Of course the simple fact is that you missed the point that the comparison is not about one becoming the other, but how similar they are.

But hey -- thanks for repeating the argument for me. The fact that it is not affected by your argument is a bonus.

Enjoy.