Why are there evolutionists?
Sure we see natural selection in action but everything we observe in biology just leads to wobbling stability.
The challenge would be to provide any biological/ genetic data that demonstrates a population can get through that wobbling stability. However it is a given that no such data will be provided.
Take blipey for example. The best it can do is to say that the vast majority of scientists accept it so that is good enough for it. But blipey is nothing but a clown- meaning it has a diminished capacity for dealing with reality. To it reality = drivel. That much is confirmed by its posts in my blog. My guess is that is why it chooses to be an evolutionist.
Dr Theobald tries to make a Scientific Case for Common Descent, yet he doesn't mention a mechanism and his "evidences" can also be used to support a Common Design. IOW his "evidences" are very subjective and can neither be objectively tested nor verified as being exclusive to Common Descent.
A critique of Theobald's evidences.
I used to be part of that lot but then I grew up and actually looked at reality. And reality demonstrates that no one even knows if the transformations required (if life's diversity arose from one or a few populations of single-celled organisms) are even possible.
The only defense of the theory is to try to discredit anyone who speaks out against it. That alone should tell most objective people that the theory is nonsense.