there's no claim made by any evolutionary theory that says we should be able to observe it.

Which is why "evolutionary theory" -- vertical speciation by only random, natural processes, specifically -- is not science, but science fiction.

Observable fact is the foundation of Science, which means your argument's gone from Arguing from Invisibility to "Nonsense is better than Nothing" to "We shouldn't be able to observe what we claim is happening."

The honest reader can see that what you're hoping constitutes inferential evidence of vertical speciation by only random, natural processes is actually evidence of descent in cases of observed parent-offspring relationships and is -- by its own admission -- useless regarding early vertical speciation.

Regardless of whether or not I understand Science or can read (I do and I can, as demonstrated by my repeated eviscerations of your "evidences"), the fact that what you claim has been occurring since the first accidental, miraculous cell(s) arose has never been observed, that all the evidence you have for it is, "Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening!" shows the empirical and intellectual bankruptcy of your position. This is why you're perseverating on the subject of the excerpt in question, rather than on what it admits (unintentionally) regarding its applicability to vertspec.

You're hoping just that no one's going to read it for themselves.

And here is the clincher, the coup de grace, the knock-out punch, the straw that broke the camel's back, the last nail in Darwin's coffin:

A scientific theory is one that generates predictions that can be verified or falsified. Yet you insist on promoting vertical speciation by only random, natural processes, something which you admit no one has observed, and no one can observe, ever.

How can you verify or falsify what you can never observe?

You just killed Darwinism.

And you want to mock Moses? At least his account of Origins matches the empirical data we actually possess.