Jan Ardena: No. As I explained to you in my previous posts, I have helpfully linked you to an example of evolution that is amply verified by evidence. There is no assumption in "gigantic changes do occur", because there is evidence that gigantic changes have occurred. I gave you some. That you choose to ignore the evidence that is presented to you doesn't put you in a particularly good light. Science is a process of inference from evidence. Direct observation is seldom a requirement. Nobody can ever hope to directly observe an electron, for example. Would you like to argue that therefore electrons remain theoretical at best? What about a statement like "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming"? Can we see carbon dioxide? Can we directly see that warming happening? Is this statement "theoretical at best", then? According to your argument, every theory in science is theoretical at best. Gravity can never be observed, so it is theoretical at best. And what of Napoleon? Nobody alive today can ever observe Napoleon, or has ever observed him. So, is Napoleon Bonaparte theoretical at best? Are you starting to see the flaw in your argument here? It's a biggy. I already showed you a very nice cladogram of whale evolution which summarises the observations nicely.