Macroevolution is what I'm talking about, er rather trying to not talk about.
Microevolution is another topic since it doesn't necessitate a < b < c, just that a != b != c.
It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the script for this thread was as follows:
1. Conclude privately, before-hand, that evolution would be an example of a > b > c
2. Ask if a > b > c is possible knowing full well it's not.
3. When nobody can give an example of a > b > c claim this as proof that evolution is not possible.
It's a classic fallacious argument style used mostly by theists and creationists. It's a ploy used by pseudo intellects in order to fool the fickle and the ignorant. You have no power here Narc.
But like I said I may be wrong. Maybe, just maybe, this is an honest thread, but I'd like you to prove it by revealing all your intentions.