[Dan(9698)]

For the lurkers, here are a few definitions:

Thank you for your definitions. It is good to be on the same page in definitions.

The thing about definitions though is the implication that a certain concept is different because it is identified by a different word.

.... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I would then say that many of the concepts of the theory of evolution are based on "Guess" (your word) rather than theorys.

Why then are students thrown out of college for "Guessing" different than the official "guesser"?

[Stultis]

I would then say that many of the concepts of the theory of evolution are based on "Guess" (your word) rather than theorys.

What there is of "guessing" (speculation unrooted in relevant and crucial evidence) tends to get cast aside. The problem (for your view of evolutionary science) is that scientists in that field are every bit as competitive and intellectually aggressive as those in any other.

There are several ways to make a reputation in science:

1. By consistently producing tedious and painstaking work that may not be earth shattering, but is valuable to your peers. (This is hard.)
2. By developing and successfully advancing an important new theory. (This is even harder and is accomplished by only a small minority of working scientists.)
3. Or by demonstrating that someone else's theory, principle or hypothesis is false, fatally flawed, or just generally full of %@*$. (This is BY FAR the easiest.)

Your comic book view of evolution (thinking Jack Chick here of course) requires a massive departure from basic tendencies of human nature by the whole of evolutionary science. It requires that thousands of experts, thoroughly familiar with the relevant evidence, and trained to rip apart inadequate ideas, repeatedly and universally refrain from doing so even though it would be in their direct professional interest.