They don't cite "any evidence?" C'mon man, they cite quite a bit of evidence. No-one can read the article and truthfully say this. Size of DNA, sophistication o

They don't cite "any evidence?" C'mon man, they cite quite a bit of evidence. No-one can read the article and truthfully say this. Size of DNA, sophistication of adaptation, differential body symettry, off the top of my head. Is that weak evidence? Well then by the same token, it's evidence. This seems to be one of the many, many times when contemporary scientists say "there is no evidence of X" when what they mean is that there is no incontrovertible evidence (the other name for which, of course, is "proof.") But proof and evidence are manifestly not the same thing and conflating them to confuse one's opponents does nobody any favors. Evidence that is not defeasible remains evidence. Luckily so - because post-Popper, we know that all scientific evidence is defeasible and proof never actually arrives.