Does the field of evolution differ from other sciences? The author, a reviewer for a major medical journal, scrutinized hundreds of scientific references in evolutionary literature, adopting the same standards used for studies submitted for medical publication. The data show that there are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution, with a clear boundary between them based upon the presence and absence of empirical evidence, respectively. The surprising results show that there is a universal disconnect between the data and the conclusions that claim to show the larger changes of macroevolution. The author reveals patterns of deviations from standard scientific methods in these studies. For the first time, evolutionary data have been summarized to describe both what evolution can and cannot accomplish. The author shows the reader how to recognize the different ways in which the evidence for microevolution within and between some species differs from the unsupported macroevolution of most species. Previous critiques of macroevolution have been debunked by advocates who have cited a multitude of scientific studies. This book goes beyond previous critiques by directly addressing the data from these studies to see if they do, in fact, support macroevolution-focused conclusions. Many expert counterarguments against this book's thesis are presented and examined in the context of scientific research to reassure the reader that the author has left no stone unturned in the macroevolution debate. A theory is proposed as to why there may be no empirical evidence for macroevolution. The book concludes with a section entitled "What we see differently." There, the author shows the reader the differences in perspective between the evolutionist and macroevolution critic as they look at and interpret the very same set of data.