In this Sense, Science Lacks a Single Case History of Evolution

   I'm thinking, this evolution debate has gone on quite long enough without anyone considering the most critical of all points.

   And, if scientists are unable to produce on this one point, perhaps, their theory that man and horse evolved from a common ancestor suffers heavily.
   So, if I could, I'd tap them each on the shoulder and ask, "Hey, do you have even one documented case of what you are talking about? Do you have, in all of recorded history, even so much as one record of a bat giving birth to a bird? Or, do you have even one recorded case of a lion, -- through the years man has been present to document such things -- evolving from an elk? I'm not talking a lion evolving into a tiger, for they are pretty similar to begin with. But, I mean, has anyone ever followed a herd of cattle through the years until what once was a species of elk is now a species of lion?"
   You can argue back -- and fairly -- that people come and live and die and are gone long before the changes occur, and therefore no one is around to say, "Hey, that old elk I once saw so often in the hills, look, it beget descendants through the years, and I have the genealogy right here, and this line has produced  a lion by the name of Frederick, and he's living at Hogle Zoo."
   I'm just saying, I don't think science can produce a single case, but I'm uneducated, and I could be wrong.
   Let's make it easier on them, and ask them to use DNA. Can they produce so much as one case where they found a  set of bones of, say, a dinosaur (we'll call him Herman), and they  found he was the 145th generation descendant of the bones they found of, say, a dog (who will will call Spot)? A DNA genealogy from Herman to Spot. That's asking a little more than just saying DNA markers in one species are 98 percent matches of those to another species.
    You would argue that billions of animals that have lived, the odds on running across such a match are astronomical. True, but what of the bones of Lucy, who some would suggest we all evolved from? Can we take her DNA and the DNA of a human alive today and find find a genealogical line, showing the person today is the 9,875th great-great-great-(etc.) grandchild of Lucy?
   The answer to that, per chance you did look it up, is that DNA is lost when bones are fossilized (so, there is no DNA left in Lucy's bones), which puts an end to much of the DNA genealogy possibilities we are here discussing. I understand, DNA has but a 521-year half life, whatever that means.
   Bottom line is, though, science lacks a single documented case where one individual person or animal evolved into another, unless I'm just not knowledgeable enough to know about it.
   Evolution might still have happened. I do not say it didn't. I just say there is this hole in the theory.