Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:Answer #1 here:__________________________________.2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :Answer #2 here:__________________________________..... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science. Medical Definition of MicrobeMicrobe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.Not excuses please. 3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.Answer #3 here:__________________________________.4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!Answer #4 here:__________________________________.Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.ev"o"lu"tion1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. Definition of true1: truthful2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension ofd : consistent true to character4: legitimate, rightful b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate: narrow, strict in the truest senseDefinition of sentient1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings2 : aware3 : finely sensitive in perception or feelingProblem with Evolutionists in general, is their Failure to verify the data or actual evidence. Evolution has always BEEN FALSE!I borrowed Pros story, to illustrate my point. .There is a mosquito in Hawaii who lays its eggs in between the ridges of crickets wings, and when they hatch, those crickets get devoured from the inside. Yum! Quickly, most of the crickets died out, except for a few, who had a random mutation in their DNA, and didn't have the ridges necessary to make sounds, or have eggs lain in them. They were the only crickets who survived this mosquito, and quickly reproduced. The mosquito's couldn't touch them, and natural selection allowed the silent crickets to live. When those mosquito's flew to the neighboring island, those crickets had already developed a different mutation in the same gene that accomplished the same task. Those islands are now filled with silent crickets.Now remove all the misdirection and it becomes Reality;There is a mosquito in Hawaii who Killed crickets having back ridgesexcept for a few, who didn't have the back ridges necessary to make soundsThey were the only crickets who survived this mosquito, and quickly reproduced. The mosquito's couldn't touch them,Those islands are now filled with silent cricketsBAM no mystery now is it, No Evolution now just dumb luck for that type of cricket, REMEMBER whether Pro wants to admit it or not ... nothing indicated there were Not back ridgeless crickets already existing. It was clearly written to support the IDEA of evolution, it's not like it's a news story? It's purpose was to support evolutionists ideology without hard evidence being NECESSARY. But if you LOOK at the actual EVIDENCE, it's ridgeless crickets giving birth to ridgeless crickets NOTHING MORE. Please! Pro erroneously calls that A NEW SPECIES? They were crickets WITHOUT back ridges, they produced WHAT? BABIES WITHOUT BACK RIDGES! By inserting natural selection, DNA all of a sudden you have something mystical, like evolution instead of what it really WAS, mosquitoes killing crickets that had back ridges. Now evolution would have been all crickets were killed and a microbe EVOLVED into a cricket without back ridges, but that didn't happen. The crickets without the back ridges ALREADY existed. They reproduced, that's called sex not evolution. How IS THAT by any definition a New Species or did 2 exact type of crickets GIVE birth to identical parent to baby crickets. Now the incredible thing would have BEEN IF two mating no ridgeback crickets had produced a what? Right a ridgeback cricket, but it's still a cricket so not a new species!By definition According to the biological species concept, a species is a group of individuals who interbreed or have the potential to interbreed in nature. By this definition, a new species exists when individuals of a population become sufficiently different and can no longer interbreed.To declare an entire system such as evolution proven by 100% unprovable data is unprofessional and misleading.