"The greater the claim is, the evidence must also be correspondingly greater".
We can see why such an axiom holds truth, from the following examples.
1. (Grand claim) I can fly like superman, without wings. EVIDENCE; a photograph of me flying.
2. (Small claim)I can jump pretty high. EVIDENCE; a photograph of me jumping pretty high.
As you can see, for obvious reasons we would DEMAND quite logically, much more from the person claiming that they can fly, than from the person claiming that they can jump pretty high. We would expect evidence-demands to differ, logically because it is an established fact that men can't fly.
Only according to propositional or historical science do we allegedly change so much biologically as to become a different kind of animal.
Therefore the value of evidence for biological evolution is dependent upon Inductive Reasoning.
Induction is very weak. A simple example is this;
Pretend we had a claim that there are no mountains on earth, and the person claiming this, had an induction of evidence of 10, million pieces of evidence. He had 10 million photographs of the earth, wherein there were no mountains in the background, only flat plains.
Would 10 million pieces of evidence disprove there are mountains?
No. Because even 10 million pieces of evidence can't disprove a fact, as a fact is based on proven deduction.
It is very important to remember that when they PROPOSE that an ape-like creature slowly developed into humans over time, that this is only inductive proposition, it is by no means proof.
Many evolutionary "evidences" of the past that were used to "prove" evolution are not not even believed to be true to modern scientific evolutionists. Lineages that were supposed to prove evolution are now abandoned in favour of different lineages.
It is very important to remember that evolution as a claim, is a very large claims that goes against the facts. Not only this, but the falsification evidence for evolution is re-labelled, as "evolution evidence".
The evidence for evolution, in quality, is of a poor quality. The Theory itself, it's hypothetics, are very sophisticated and the Theory does contain factually proven elements such as natural selection and mutations and so forth. It is not the scientists that I am blaming, nor am I rejecting facts within the Theory, but of those aforementioned propositional elements there can be no question that a tally of consistencies can not be held as proof or fact pertaining to so grandiose a claim.