> We’d have to see them turn into organisms that were very different from their original form or even multi-cellular. That would be closer to what evolution as origin of life says. Instead, most (all?) stay what they are with minor adaptations.

Let's take a look at the E. coli long term evolution experiment [1]! Here we see 12 initially identical populations of bacteria live through over 80k generations over a period of 36 years. During this time these isolated populations have undergone significant changes (such as becoming at least twice as large) that would surely qualify as "very different from their original form". One of the populations evolved the ability to aerobically grow on citrate. Not being able to do this is one of the defining qualities of E.coli, so it must surely qualify as becoming 'very different'.

> We’ve also observed billions of other creatures over thousands of years that didn’t turn into new insects or animals. Evolution’s predictions on a macro-level have failed over a billion times for thousands of years.

Speciation is usually a gradual process. There won't be a clear instant where yesterday there was one species and today it's suddenly two species. So in that regard there isn't a specific moment one could personally observe. And with the time between generations for animals being relatively long, we don't see much progress being made. What we do see around us is species in various stages of speciation. Here is a nice example of speciation starting for European birds [2] that is very recent.

Also I would argue that the E.coli experiment has shown speciation in a human lifetime.

> On the fossil record, evolution predicted continuous streams of changes in all directions with piles of viable, intermediate forms. We don’t see that. We do see large jumps from one type to another happening after extinctions where there’s lower populations.

Citation needed? We have lots of species living today that we can trace to shared ancestors, like how we can trace humans, chimps, and orangutans to a common ancestor. It's true that speciation happens much faster after an extinction, this makes sense because extinction events cause previously occupied ecological niches to get opened up. In a static environment the rate of change is low because most species will be in a local optimum. Everything we see appears to confirm evolution. If you think the fossil record disproves evolution you should consider if it merely disproves your understanding of evolution, which may be incorrect.

> That’s exactly what evolutionists do. These failures of the theory, both observational and historical, would have had it tossed long ago like most theories that fail that much. Instead, they keep making excuses for it or emphasizing again that it must be true.

You mean biologists? To call evolution a failed theory is absurd, it's one of the most successful theories science has produced. It's supported by the fossil record, by DNA research, by bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics and gaining the ability to digest plastics. By vestigial organs. By the way that early fetal development for mammals all looks the same. And there are no counter examples. No species appearing out of nowhere without a historical ancestor. No species with completely incompatible biology to our own.

> That’s not science. That is like dogma driven by emotional or socio-political factors. Which also provably exist in institutions promoting it. So, it’s not science since it (a) is driven by non-scientific forces and (b) continues to fail the scientific method.

You are seeing a conspiracy where none exists. If you have a better theory than evolution I encourage you to publish, and in a decade or two we will all know you as a Nobel prize winner. Maybe share it with us here on HN, I for one would be delighted to have been one of the first to have read this new theory. I sure hope it doesn't rely on an invisible undetectable magic man steering everything.

Even if a theory is invented to supplant evolution, I guarantee it will include evolution. Just like General Relativity supplanted Newtonian Physics, turns out that they have pretty much the same results at the scales and speeds we usually find ourselves at. And just like the Earth being an oblate sphere instead of a perfect sphere. The basic idea of evolution is correct and any hypothetical future changes will be a refinement on what we already know, not a radically different thing.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_...
2. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-t...