[orionblamblam]

>Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity ... the atomic theory...

Wow. I know of nobody outside of the Creationist realm who makes such comparisons. Those are silly, and point out that this is nothing more than a strawman arguement, and a weak-a$$, lame one at that.

Evolution does not follow a set of equations, but it is clearly seen. Predictions based upon evolutionary theory are regularly made, regularly tested, and regularly shown to be valid (i.e. "I predict that a transitional fossil between X and Z will be found."). To claim that biological evolution does not occur because it does not follow strict mathematical rules is as goofy as claiming that history or erosion or global climate change on the megayear scale do not exist.

Evolution is not a fundamental force of nature like gravity or the weak nuclear force, but is the *result* of the interactions of a very, very complex set of variables.

[mgstarr]

These threads always seem like some strange combination of Groundhog Day meets Inherit the Wind .

[job]

Obviously, you have not studied erosion.