[Physicist]

As a group, the FR-evos do not now do science, nor have they ever done science.

You are wrong.

As for the topic of the thread, and I say this in all seriousness, I consider the descent of species by gradual modfication from a common ancestor--the fact of evolution, if you will--to be as firmly demonstrated as almost any fact of science. Any theory that does not account for common descent must be considered refuted.

Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its.

[Fichori]

“I consider the descent of species by gradual modfication from a common ancestor--the fact of evolution, if you will--to be as firmly demonstrated as almost any fact of science.” [excerpt]

When you say I consider you are asserting this as a belief rooted in faith?

“Any theory that does not account for common descent must be considered refuted.” [excerpt]

Not in empirical science.

“Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its.” [excerpt]

Again, is this a statement of faith or are you asserting this as fact?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Furthermore, I consider Darwin's theory--the source of modification was the inheritance of random variations of parental traits, followed by the natural or sexual selection of the offspring--to be a more accurate and complete model of its subject than the atomic theory of matter is of its.

You should read the chapters on Natural and Sexual Selection in T.H. Morgan's Evolution and Adaptation. It may put some doubts in your mind. There's a link to the book on my FR page.