Mitch old man I do not have time to field an entire tirade by some glib tongued egoist that doesn't realize how lost he really is. I have a test report to finish on a new photo editing system that is giving me nightmares to the extent that I have to start it all over and throw out most of the first six to ten pages. Hours of video editing to do. A yard that needs heavy work, a garage with workshop that is such a mess that I can't get my car into it, and a barn that needs to be straightened out sufficiently in order to get my boat out of it so I can work on that. Oh yes, and a shed that need fixing. I do this while fighting a fatal lung disease that leaves me coughing dizzy. NONETHELESS, Lord willing, as Arnie said: "I WILL BE BACK" with your answer as soon as possible.
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
In the meantime I will ask only ONE QUESTION at a time rather than bury you with rhetoric. You concede that evolution has 'some' problems. So my question starts with a statement of accepted fact by both sides:
"'Natural Selection' is 'Micro' evolution: VARIATIONS WITHIN KINDS. The survival of the fittest as Darwin described it etc."
This is the only evolution that has been observed.
THIS IS SCIENCE AND PROVABLE. 
HOWEVER, THE >ONLY EVIDENCES< OF EVOLUTION GIVEN ARE ALWAYS THIS >MICRO< EVOLUTION; variations within kinds. Canines= more canines, felines= more felines, cats do not produce catfish and can NOT interbreed.
Now the question is: Somehow, you evolutionists imply that this micro evolution is evidence for the other five types of evolution. If the hypothesis has any validity at all why, or at least how is that possible that you cannot show a
SINGLE instance of the other types?
