We have heaps of evidence for speciation (micro- and macroevolution); from the lab and the wild, embryology, hybridisation, morphology, fossil records, dna analysis, chromosomal changes...

Macroevolution starts with speciation. It's hard to draw the line between micro and macro. Macro is basically an accumulation of micro over time

I can send you a list of scientific peer reviewed papers on it, if you're interested?

"Where a bird turns into a non-bird". Yea, that's not how science works. I believe you're talking about magic.. Palaeontology and palaeoecology are not useless, but ok, I mean, palaeontology is a scientific field after all. Try again
You want empirical evidence? Sure thing, here you go. Four links to start you off https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ele.12460, https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12374, https://www.pnas.org/content/116/27/13440, https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/37/1/183/5570178

You didn't seem to read what I said, so let me repeat (no worries mate, you're good). Micro describes mechanisms that alter the frequencies of alleles (within species), yea? Macro describes patterns at a grand scale across vast time periods. The only difference is the timescale involved. Cool? Btw, what do you mean by "they cannot apply the scientific method"?

@Flat Earth PhD the fact that the fossil is there means it's parents reproduced at one point smh.... The study of fossils proves evolution

I'm glad we agree

No, please. I want you to prove me wrong

Dunning kruger effect meme

Why are vaccines bad?

Not all the ingredients no, it varies depending on the vaccine I guess

And this "author" of yours, did you know he said vaccines are linked to autism?

I would rather have autism than be dead....

What was his sample size? And control group?

Sample size: 5 people

Lol

Aspergers?

One group of 5 and one group of 10 individuals. Not promising. Sadly hmm

Perhaps another study?

Ah, no worries

Thanks though

Not sure tbh. I don't have much to add

Have a good day byeee