Which are local, and only demonstrate local micro-gravity.
and galaxies,
Which are much further scattered from each other in the cosmos than fossil creatures are in the geological record, and whose evidence is fossil light that is millions of years old.
your argument rests on the assumption that the elaboration of new types of organs, systems, and body plans has actually been observed somewhere, sometime, even once, which it has not. Volley back, please.
Your arguement rests on an assumption about the action of gravity at a distance that cannot be verified in the entire reach of the intergalactic void.
Similarly, you have no first-hand evidence from anyone that continents drift. A few earthquakes and volcanos around an apparent crescent ring could just as easily be explained as volcanos attempting to herd.
I could learn. <..>
If I might offer a humble suggestion, it might be more of a learning experience to look at the primary sources, and try to understand why a vast majority of scientists, who bath in the primary sources daily, think darwinian evolution is the most securely demonstrated scientific theory we possess. I guarantee that, notwithstanding opinions I've seen expressed in these threads, it is not because they are all left-wing punks engaged in a vast conspiracy to implement communism by covering up the real evidence, and polluting our minds with Darwin's teachings--or venal, intellectually cowardly liars that suppress the real evidence in order to keep their cushy jobs.
These arguments are fun, but the weight of scientific reasoning lies where the rubber hits the road.
Please excuse me, but I can't quite work out what you mean by this. Are you saying that "I" am assuming that calculations involving gravity at sidereal orders of magnitude can't be verified?