You say i made blunders? I am waiting as are others to see what part of my mail you are mocking? Do not mock unless you are sure of yourself.
Where am i starting from? I am saying evolution is based on empirical evidence of micro evolution. This scientific data from observations over the past couple of centuries is then extrapolated over the vast millenia life has been said to be evolving. There is no empirical evidence of or observed macro evolution. Dawkins tried in one of his books to use the herring gull to show how we have this evidence of macro evolution in our time. He said the herring gull develops pre zygotic barriers through evolution and can no longer breed with other distant cousins, thereby breeding a new and distinct species incapable of breeding with one another. This is speciation which probably falls between micro and macro somewhere (not sure exactly). He likened this scientific observation to the ape/man controversy. But he was wrong - the herring gull complex is a fake. His scientific observations are nothing more than an example of his faith, based upon hope. His attempt was to try and show macro evolution through speciation through isolation. Previously darwins evolution was based upon speciation over time. This problem meant that nobody had empricical data because the evolution he was describing only occured through minor changes over millenia. Sure punctuated equalibrium has been promoted to help cover the cracks in darwins original theory that it was always gradual but this is in itself still another baseless theory. Who has ever witnessed punctuated equalibrium? Without empirical data or scientific observation the theory is way below other theories that are used to describe observed phenomona such as gravity. My assertion is that it is less substantiated than the biblical creation model but theres another thread.
How does such a baseless theory get taught in our schools as science is beyond my grasp. We might as well be teaching the moon is flat.