"The point is, you have never seen a planet fall or be pulled by the gravitational force of another body, but you believe the orbits of planets are a result of gravitation, because you've extrapolated from a smaller scale. But you are unwilling to make the same extrapolation for evolution. That tells me you are not applying the same rules for both."
The key word in the paragraph above is "believe". Belief is required when you can't test a hypothesis.
As for extrapolation, if I extrapolate from the "small scale" up then I could conclude that since the observed changes observed in organisms are such that it remains the same organism (i.e., the new roaches are different in characteristics but they are still roaches) apparently large evolutionary changes don't take place. That would be a consistent application.
But no one knows what would happen over many generations and a very long time, so what I posited can't be tested. Therefore the extrapolation I made would result in a belief.
So the law of universal gravitation is merely a belief?
As for extrapolation, if I extrapolate from the "small scale" up then I could conclude that since the observed changes observed in organisms are such that it remains the same organism (i.e., the new roaches are different in characteristics but they are still roaches) apparently large evolutionary changes don't take place
A roach after small changes is still a roach, because we call it a roach. If the roach were longer, had larger back legs, were colored green, and developed the ability to chirp, we'd call it a cricket.
But no one knows what would happen over many generations and a very long time, so what I posited can't be tested.
"No one knows if the planet Jupiter obeys the law of Universal Gravitation, because we can't bring it to a laboratory and see if it's attracted to massive objects"