Quote
All this time and all of your posts Linda, and not a single shred of real evidence, something a person could hold in their hand or observe without argument and say, look there it is!

If you can say this after the posts that RAZD, LinearAQ and I have put here, then I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are using. As long as there are people who want to deny that the evidence exists then there will be arguments. What would you like to have in your hands that would cause you not to argue?

Quote
I am well aware also of the fact that like Lysenko, whoever how many more, there were plenty of other scientists contemporary with Darwin whose work in actuality seems to deserve more acclaim than darwin's and that exactly is the problem too.

Did you click on all the links that CTD gave about him? He denied the existence of genes, he practised a disproved form of Lamarckism, his science is questionable at best because of the heavy propaganda surrounding it, and he was responsible for policies in the USSR and in China which caused crop failure and starvation. He saw that planting wheat very close together could initially encourage growth, but the growth could not be sustained because of the limited nutrients in the soil for so many plants. The USSR disseminated fake pictures of wheat planted so thickly that children could stand on top of it (supported by a table underneath, that is). I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are using to decide that his work deserves more acclaim than Darwin's; perhaps you can explain?