Imagine we have one fellow who claims he is a fairly strong man and for a test we get three strong men we know to be strong and have him arm wrestle them and beat them.
That's fairly equivalent as evidence. Or at the least we can say it supports his claim in some equivalent way when compared with the claim.
But imagine if the next day he said that this proved he was the strongest man in the world. Would the evidence be sufficient to prove his claim? No. What would be? Let us take all of the likely strongest men in the world, and imagine he beat them in tests of strength, technically he might not be the strongest man in the world but it would be fairly sufficient evidence he likely is.
So but then let us now imagine that because of that the next day he claims to be superman, the actual man of steel, and he genuinely means it. Would the evidence that he beat all the strongest men in the world suffice as to the claim he is the man of steel?
No, perhaps punching through walls would, but an arm-wrestling success wouldn't.
So can anyone see what is happening here with these examples? An axiom can be stated;
The greater a claim is, the greater the corresponding evidence must be in order to match it in some manner of equivalence, or at the least be good evidence in support of it.
So then where it is not possible to fully evidence any particular claim, if there is a portion of evidence available, is it not reasonable to say that the portion of evidence in some way must be a representation of the claim, even by portion?
So then logically if someone claims to be superman, which is the correct evidence in portion? Success at arm wrestling or punching through solid walls?
Obviously punching through walls, meaning a portion of the evidence in some way represents the size of the claim, it would be reasonable to then conclude he may indeed be superman. Not that I am saying you must affirm the consequent, I am just saying that the evidence at least reasonably matches up with the size of the claim, in the portion provided.
So then another example may be, imagine if I claimed to be a professional ice dancer/skater, if we were next to an ice rink would it suffice to the claim according to our axiom if I were to show that I could slide on ice with skates? Or if I were for five minutes to perform moves which looked identical to those you see professional dancers perform?
It's not hard to understand why my logic is correct.
So where am I going with this? Basically I don't think the claims of macro evolution are equivalent in any way. If anatomical designs, no matter how clever they are, and how we plagiarise them (biomimetics), came about by evolution I again ask the question, if every super-intelligent anatomy in nature in all it's brilliant solutions to the anatomical problems that exist, evolved, which one is sufficient to match the claim in portion, a bacteria turning into bacteria and adapting by becoming resistant in the lab, or a bacteria in part, evolving a clever new anatomy in it's morphology?
A little bit like asking the previous questions, IMO. For if someone is only able for one moment to evidence his claims to be superman, punching through a solid wall in some measure is consistently matching evidence. So then evolution's claim is that it invented everything on earth, can it not even show us the invention of one small novel anatomy, even in part? Now even if you object and say, "that is not how evolution works", if I objected and said, "my friend can't punch through the wall that is not how he operates as superman" would that excuse, logically, mean that we can now conclude he is superman because he doesn't operate like superman? In the same manner, if evolution can't show us in the present, even the small creation of a novel anatomy, does it then follow that we can conclude that therefore it happened? Or, do we conclude that even though evolution cannot provide the evidence, still the correct logic is to say then that nevertheless even if it could not provide the evidence, this won't mean that it follows that evolution is sufficiently evidenced because logically that is the evidence that would match the claim.
So even if I sympathise and say, "yes, evolution just can't provide it". Your problem is, it also couldn't provide it if evolution was false, which may be the reason why it can't provide the evidence. In other words, whether it can or can't provide us with the evidence, it isn't sufficiently supported as a claim.
Be honest, it doesn't match, a lot of the evidence put forward for evolution is correlation or coincidence, or patterns from a nested hierarchy or circumstantial transitionals with no way to test, or genetic closeness which can't be tested like genuine relatedness can amongst same species where we already have proof of closeness through reproduction, or similar organs in similar types of species, a sharing of traits, etc, etc....but what about the matching evidence showing a clever anatomy can come in part or in full by macro evolution?
Your answer; Creationists are stupid, creationists are crackpots, creationists are ignorant, that's just creationists they don't understand evolution, creationists this, creationists that....yes, yes, yes, but is my axiom correct or not? If it is not, then I guess two add two being four is also wrong.
(please feel free to use this information dear readers)