"Evolution is a unifying theory with many gaps in the puzzle ("the missing link", maybe you've heard of it). Not so other theories."
Relativity, Big Bang, theory of flight, atomic theory, gravitation - all theories have gaps. If they didn't there wouldn't be anyone working on them.
Evolution is a very good explaination for the diversity of modern species and observed common descent in the fossil record. Despite gaps it is one of the best scientific theories in existance and has no competitors.
"The hoaxed Piltdown Man was a part of their "proof" in the past. "He" remained for decades."
And was exposed by scientists who accepted evolution. Furthermore Piltdown Man actually started to contradict the pattern of genuine hominid fossil found in subsequent years. There are now dozens of hominid fossil species that have been discovered since Piltdown man that overwhelmingly show that humans have evolved over time.
"Well, there are a lot of gaps in the evidence, and we're really not certain that the variety of species rose according to the classic theory of macro evolution, but it's the best thing we have going"
From current evidence common descent of species is considered beyond doubt. Macro-evolution is beyond doubt. The theoretical part of the theory of evolution is explaining the mechanisms for how this happened. For example it is not speculation that whales evolved from land animals, because not only are whales genetically similar to a certain group of mammals and share morphological similarities, but transitional fossils have been found. But it is currently speculation as to the precise genetic changes that occured for this to happen. So school books can use whale evolution as an example of evolution without having to resort to speculation of the genetic changes behind it.
Let's consider the record. We know there are about 1.4 million different genes expressed in various micro-organisms found in ocean water around the world (Check out a recent Discover on that one ~ the guy who speeded up the human genome project was fired, went out to sea, and checked out the bacteria, et al. Interesting stuff.)
Human beings have about 35,000 genes. Fruit flies have 15,000 to 20,000 genes. Many other animals have most of the same genes bugs and people have, and in comparable numbers.
So, what's going on? How can we have so few genes and have such profound differences ~ that's the current question.
Let's go back to all those genes in the bacteria. Presumably they do the bacteria some good, but what if we took a couple of the ones you don't have and added them to your genome in some manner ~ maybe through the bite of a deadly, but otherwise harmless almost microscopic spider. Maybe something would change. Maybe not. But definitely you would then have a bacteria derived gene in your makeup doing whatever it was able (supposed?) to do.
Envision having a vast storehouse of advanced genes which if placed in the correct organism could improve it's performance, much as we might fix up a 1957 Chevy by adding a supercharger.
It's not evolution, and I don't know if it's design, but it's certainly possible.
Maybe the "evolution" we speak of actually applied to a situation tens of billions of years ago on a long vanished quiet place in the vastness of space before the creation of the current universe, or at least our portion of it.
That evolution "happened", and led ultimately to the creation of a great machine we call "life", and all it is now is a recombination of the ancient lineages of life as expressed in the structures we call genes.
No doubt it's half a dozen of one and 6 of the other to the genes. They "express" themselves properly whether working in a haploid or a diploid form, and that's something to really think about. We are, after all, during a critical stage of our lives, nothing but single cell animals.
The whole gist of this article is that the author was POed that his writing was not "beyond doubt". You just admit that part is a theoretical explanation.
Have I discounted that things evolved? No. I have said that some of the explanation is conjecture, prone to error, bias, and later correction and as such should be identified as such.
To some it is heresy to admit that science doesn't have all the answers at this time.