IMO you are setting the bar for "knowing" arbitarily high, to a point where just about everything is unknowable.
For example do we know the romans existed? Sure we have historical documents, but we don't know for sure these haven't all been fabricated. Your definition of knowing seems to suggest that if I haven't directly observed the roman empire with my own eyes then I can't "know" it existed.
Also we can't possibly "know" anyone is guilty of murder unless we directly observed them committing the crime (we can't even trust witnesses as we can't "know" they are telling the truth).
It is merely a theory with no facts or proof behind it. I have gone over this over and over again in this thread and I stand behind each and every one of my points.
Evolution is not using some unique methodology. What you throw at Evolution you could equally throw at quantum theory, plate techtonics and germ theory. None of them have "proof".
Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. As another poster put it so well a few posts ago, it seems every time an evolutionist comes up with some new "evidence" of evolution is it merely another variation within the same species, i.e., a mutation resulting in lack of armor in a sticklefish. It doesn't matter if a sticklefish mutates with or without armor. It is STILL a sticklefish. It is STILL a fish. It hasn't changed into another species.
It is a different species of sticklefish. So yes it has changed into another species. If you are setting the bar higher than the species level then say that. I am currently in another debate on another forum where I have a creationist telling me that they accept all 350,000 species of beetles came from about 50 original beetle species on the arc. It's hard to find any common ground between those who attack evolution, because I suspect they are making up their objections as they go along.
I am sick of the arrogance of evolutionists, well demonstrated here repeatedly, and your jesuitical faith in your THEORY
You think it is arrogance but I have encountered the arguments you have put forward before and thought about them quite a lot. After looking at the situation I have come to realise that evolution uses the same scientific principles as any theory, and they are principles that over time add to knowledge and converge on a good model of the phenomenon being studied. Your position is basically one saying that science cannot determine anything about the past whatsoever. That is sad.
You have no proof of your theory, and you don't even understand the mechanics of it yourself. Unlike gravity you cannot demonstrate its effects.
We haven't even discussed the mechanics of it. I can demonstrate the effects of evolution. A nice chart of the hominid fossils does that nicely.
The effects of gravity are masses moving together.
The effects of evolution are: -transitional fossil forms -strict patterns to fossil distribution -strict patterns to geographical distribution of living species -strict patterns to shared genetic material between species
All of which are repeatable observations.
You merely point to similarities between or among creatures in the fossil line and use your "imagination" as an earlier poster put it, to postulate the relationship between different organisms.
In the same way that if I found two very closely related human DNA strings I would use my "imagination" to posulate the relationship between them. I see no inherent weakness with this approach. And of course we are not just comparing functional DNA, but also the errors that have accumulated through time. If two books have the same error on the same page then it seems quite absurd to imagine they were created independently.
As I stated before, you cannot conduct (as of this point) an experiment that consistently produces a physical result that demonstrates evolution from one species to another, or from a lower order to a higher.
Noone can conduct an experiment that produces a full orbit of pluto either. But that doesn't mean pluto orbiting the sun is just a guess.
In addition, you have no direct observation of evolution (not variation in a specific species like a flower, but evolution from one type of being to another type)in over 2000 years of recorded history.
A flower is not a species. Even if I had an example as dramatic as a rose evolving into a daffodil you would claim "but its still a flower". I suppose if I had an observation of a chimpanzee evolving into a human you would say "but its still an ape". There are examples of new species emerging, but you will just say "but its still an X" so whats the point? Wll here's one observation of a new species of mosquito anyway: link
Could someone else take a turn arguing these highly arguable points? I don't have time to do anything at length today.