My "willful" avoiding you trying to explain science, after your stupid claim that everyone is ZZZzzzzzzz is common sense.... Hubristic science followers, the flip side of the coin from the Hubristic "saved" and "chosen" theists are the same animal who live off of dogmatic fumes...
The only thing common in this forum is your use of multiple aliases to prop up your arguments that cannot stand up on their own.
Prove you're not Jampilier and I'll publicly apologize. As far as substantive claims for evolution, I have scientific evidence to support each claim I make. You have only bluster and multiple aliases.
You claim something to be true, can't prove it, then demand someone else prove you wrong. Classic childish thinking...
And, yet you won't disprove the claim that you and Jampilier are one in the same. Evidently your credibility isn't worth much even to you.
It is not up to me to prove your claim wrong. It is your job to prove it right... Doh! You would do wonders in a court of law... LOL! The moderators have the proof, they see not only the IP address, but can tell you what state it is coming from. You are such a tool. A grand conspiracy theory, too funny...
You yourself brought up hybrids. I'm asking for examples, and we'll see where it leads. What's the big deal?
Now it looks like you're trying a dodge. At some point, species A must develop a first member of species AA, if AA is a product of the evolution of A, and at some point, species A must develop a first member of species BB, if BB is a product of the evolution of A. Yes, that appears to be a rather serious logical problem for your "evolution" theory. Saying there is no "direct" path but rather a path of some other sort really doesn't solve anything, because you still need a CONTINUITY of parent and child between species A and species B. How does that work, exactly? Then produce an observation of that happening.