... and science can never rule out metaphysics.
And metaphysics can never rule in
metaphysics. If I'm wrong show me
Meanwhile the process of science can be trusted to explain what it can based on the evidence available, and admit when it was wrong based on new evidence. Metaphysics and religion never admit to being wrong because they can't even explain to themselves when they are wrong.
Why is it so hard to understand the evolution of gears? Start with smooth surfaces, no contact. Then contact, with friction. Then rougher surfaces, with more friction. Then a deformity that acts as a notch, a mechanical advantage. Then more notches ... and so on.
Similar incremental processes have produced complex structures such as eyes and wings.
If you need to test a prediction that ancient fossils will be found to support the evolution of gears that's okay with me. Go for it - put the effort in. Just please take into account that thousands upon thousands of such predictions about intermediary fossil stages of almost every trait described in nature are continually cropping up. (So many that it's become a settled question in science.)
You are entitled to go out on a limb and say fossils of this particular trait won't be found - that could be the case - the fossil record was not designed for our edification. We know enough about the process of fossilisation to accept that we will not find every conceivable piece of the jigsaw puzzle through time. But how do you
explain all the other missing links popping up routinely?
Or do you intend to gloat over one little straw available for you to clutch at temporarily - just because it's still a new discovery in science?
BTW in the field you won't find a single creation scientist toiling anywhere to not
find these intermediary fossils - they only snipe away from the sidelines like annoying little opportunistic mosquitoes that contribute nothing - but fly away with a stolen droplet here and there to feed their useless parasitic kind a short lived propaganda meal.